TexasCHLforum.com

fast eddie wrote:One incident doesn't make a pattern. I think you are overreacting.

And how do you know that there is not a pattern? I would write those troopers' boss a nastygram, and let him judge if there is a pattern. There may well be 40 more in their files.

kw5kw wrote: ...just because someone meets all of the legal requirements ...t just means that they have never been caught.

That's right, we are all just criminals waiting to get caught.

kw5kw wrote: Troopers don't know what they're gonna get either when they make that stop.

Neither do we.

I still would like to know what made the Trooper "reasonably believe" that it was necessary to disarm the OP. If he didn't meet the requirements of the following statute, he broke the law.

GC 9411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officers official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

Y'all are missing the point. Of course, a cop can pull anyone over for no reason, I am not disputing that. It seems to me that if the officer is just fishing, and does not actually have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to disarm a licensee, he is breaking the law. I can see some valid reasons to disarm, like a lone cop with no backup. Or if the vehicle matched the description of an evil-doer, but then there would be a full, guns-drawn stop. Neither of these was the case.

GC 9411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officers official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

GC 9411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officers official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

OK, how on earth would this officer "reasonably believe" that it was necessary to disarm this license holder?