Search found 4 matches

by TVegas
Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:40 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion on SB11
Replies: 23
Views: 4145

Re: AG opinion on SB11

Papa_Tiger wrote:
TVegas wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
mreed911 wrote:Terry stop, RS, PC or not, the Government Code explicitly authorizes an officer to make the stop and check for a license. No opinion is needed. Until the leg changes GC 411, it's legal.
If you are going to reference 411.205, you might actually want to read it and understand what it says...

Please show me where it grants authority to an officer to demand your license. The statute is quoted for your convenience below:
GC 411.205 wrote:REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.
Terry Stops were upheld by the court. It's common law. That statute is separate from the authority itself. The statute is a requirement put on the license holder when the officer initiates a Terry Stop.
My point exactly. The officer has to have a reason to demand your ID before you are required to present it. GC 411 does not give authorization to an officer to initiate a stop, it prescribes what action the license holder must take IF an officer demands identification from the license holder.

That being said, show the officer your license and you will be on your way. The street corner is not the place to be playing lawyer with an officer who is ignorant of the law. Follow it up after the fact with a complaint to his superiors including Open Records requests for the stop video as well as any 911 calls and other documentation if you are concerned about it.
Right, but the Terry decision gives an officer the authority to briefly detain for any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (There is a difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause) During that detention, the officer can demand identification. For instance: "It's illegal to carry a gun in the state of Texas, unless you have a LTC. You are carrying a gun. Could I please see your LTC?"

There really is no debate here. Open carry is not legal in Texas, but there is an exception for LTC holders. This an important distinction that separates Texas from most other states where there is not a law against carrying a gun openly. All those people who have made YouTube videos exercising their rights and refusing to give ID to police could be arrested and charged in a heartbeat here.

I wish that the amendment (Huffines?) barring an officer from asking for a license without probable cause had made it through, but that's unfortunately not the case.
by TVegas
Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:05 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion on SB11
Replies: 23
Views: 4145

Re: AG opinion on SB11

Papa_Tiger wrote:
mreed911 wrote:Terry stop, RS, PC or not, the Government Code explicitly authorizes an officer to make the stop and check for a license. No opinion is needed. Until the leg changes GC 411, it's legal.
If you are going to reference 411.205, you might actually want to read it and understand what it says...

Please show me where it grants authority to an officer to demand your license. The statute is quoted for your convenience below:
GC 411.205 wrote:REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.
Terry Stops were upheld by the court. It's common law. That statute is separate from the authority itself. The statute is a requirement put on the license holder when the officer initiates a Terry Stop.
by TVegas
Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:52 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion on SB11
Replies: 23
Views: 4145

Re: AG opinion on SB11

ELB wrote:Footnote 7:
7 You do not ask whether institutions of higher education may establish policies regarding the manner in
which license holders carry on campus, such as holster requirements or policies regarding the presence of a chambered
round. See Campus Carry Policy Working Group Final Report, supra note 3 at 16 (preventing license holders from
carrying a gun with a chambered round, requiring license holders to carry in a holster that completely covers the
trigger and trigger guard area, and requiring sufficient tension on the handgun to retain it in the holster when subjected
to unexpected jostling). Analyzing such restrictions would involve whether S.B. 11 delegated to public institutions
of higher education the ability to restrict the manner in which license holders carry and whether state law restrictions
on the manner of carrying preempts the field of such regulations. See, e.g., S. Crushed Concrete, L.L.C. v. City of
Houston, 398 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. 2013) (recognizing that state law may preempt local ordinances).
Am I wrong in thinking that the AG is signaling that Senator Birdwell should ask this question, and if he does, the AG's opinion will be "no they can't regulate how to carry" ?
It looks like that's exactly what he's saying. It's good that he had the foresight to add that in.
by TVegas
Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:49 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: AG opinion on SB11
Replies: 23
Views: 4145

Re: AG opinion on SB11

For those that may not want to read the entire opinion, I added some information to provide a bit more context to the summary. I do suggest that everyone read the opinion, and keep in mind that an AG opinion does not guarantee the opinion of the courts.
dhoobler wrote:https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0051.pdf

SUMMARY
A court would likely conclude that a public institution of higher education exceeds the authority granted under Senate Bill 11 if it prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns in a substantial number of classrooms (referencing classrooms which are occupied by grade school classes) or delegates to individual professors the decision as to whether possession of a concealed handgun is allowed in the individual professor's classroom.

If a public institution of higher education placed a prohibition on handguns in the institution's campus residential facilities, it would effectively prohibit license holders in those facilities from carrying concealed handguns on campus, in violation of the express terms of Senate Bill 11. (the code states that institutions can only regulate how firearms are stored in residential facilities)

A court could conclude that occasional, reasonable, temporary restrictions that are prominently posted on the institution's website clearly notify license holders and do not amount to a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed handguns on campus. (my thoughts: if the institution is required to post 30.06 on prohibited buildings, then I don't see how an online notice of a temporary prohibition is sufficient)

An individual whose legal rights have been infringed due to a president or chief executive officer of a public institution adopting regulations that exceed the authority granted in Senate Bill 11 would likely have standing to bring an ultra vires cause of action against the president or chief executive officer. (sovereign immunity would limit any cause of action to providing only injunctive relief (the institution would have to fix the issue), no money damages)

If a court concludes that the rules established by an institution of higher education with regard to where concealed handguns may be carried are not authorized by statute, it would follow that any further enforcement of such provisions would be ultra vires.(same as above)
Thanks to the OP for posting about the opinion! :thumbs2:

Return to “AG opinion on SB11”