TexasCHLforum.com

NNT wrote:

bdgyeah wrote:

I know others may disagree, but I like the idea of a Terry Stop. For me it's a question of, how many felons have been jailed, and how many murders, rapes, etc., have been prevented, versus how many people got their feelings hurt?

I would be one to disagree. I know life is not black and white and we give up some liberty to live in a society and find bad guys. But I don't take lightly giving up rights. I don't take being frisked and property searched as 'feelings hurt', it is the ultimate invasion of privacy. Do you have the same feel of letting an officer search your house and home safe? No problem if you have nothing to hide, right?

It's a slippery slope. Stop and frisk, traffic stop and vehicle search, search of nearby homes after a store robbery. All of these would no doubt catch some criminals. But IMHO, none are worth the cost.

steveincowtown wrote:

Abraham wrote:In Texas, I will show my DL and my LTC to LE, but unless asked, I won't notify I'm armed.

It's not impolite or illegal to keep my yap closed regarding my status of being armed, again, unless asked by LE.

Two other points:

#1> Any LEO worth his salt should presume each and every encounter is an armed encounter.

#2> With so many incidents of fake LEOs pulling people over, I have a real issue with the fact that we have to notify in Texas.

Unless in a state where required to do so, I do not notify the LEO of anything until him finding out is eminent.

Regarding your point #2, why would any even half way sane person decide to take on an armed victim when they could just give that person a "warning" and choose another victim who won't be so well equipped to fight back?

Yes I know that criminals don't think like the rest of us, but are they really going out of their way to take on the toughest victims they can find?

In Texas, I just hand over the LTC with my DL. In Louisiana, there is a requirement to inform, so I will do so while choosing my words VERY carefully. I research the rules for other states before going there with a firearm.

IANAL, but it seems a bit disingenuous to say that someone should be subject to additional non-consensual searches because they did exactly what the state law required them to do. Then again, the judicial branch is basically making a mockery of itself lately, so I would believe just about anything.