TexasCHLforum.com

EVen so, I doubt very much they would approve of how far down the Hobbesian road we've traveled. Even Hamilton would have probably been appalled.

seamusTX wrote:However, there is always a tendency to surrender personal sovereignty in exchange for peace and prosperity, or a pale imitation thereof.

And we know what the founders thought of that!

Interesting reply, Jim. I'll confess that I've never read Hobbes - at least intentionally. I'll check it out.

In any case, I looked up this Wiki reference for some biographical background on Hobbes, and I found these three paragraphs about Leviathan interesting:

In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments - based on social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war.

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected:[10] the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

I think that last bit would put me in opposition to Hobbes's premise.

Morgan wrote:To one person it's "looking for loopholes" and to another it's "trying to understand the law." They're essentially the same thing, with different motives. I choose to believe in the more innocent motive unless someone goes out of their way to ascribe the other to their actions.

Thank you for clarifying that better than I did.

txflyer wrote:My contention is that CHL laws do not apply to me on my private property even if I have a CHL. I know it may take case law to bear that out, but I firmly believe the legislature did not intend to affect the privacy of one's home when the CHL laws were enacted.

While I don't care enough about it to make an issue of it, that possibility was what motivated my asking the question in the first place in my OP. I think there is a societal presumption that a man's home is his castle. We even have that codified to a certain extent into law here in Texas in the form of the Castle doctrine. If we, as individual citizens, are not sovereign within the confines of our own homes, then are we sovereign at all? For me, philosophically, I cooperate within the confines of my own home because I choose to, not because I feel that I am required to. But I have no idea if my philosophical inclination actually squares with the law, and that is why I posed the question.

OTH, is the presumption of sovereignty within one's own home just a myth? After all, there are legal limits to what we may do within the confines of our own homes - even in privacy. For instance, if I choose to grow pot inside the house, I'm still breaking the law. Zoning requirements may limit how I can use my home. The tax code places limits on how much I can deduct from my taxes for using my home as my place of business. I may not discharge a firearm inside of my home for recreational purposes. Etc., etc., etc.

rm9792 wrote:Why does everyone keep trying to find a loophole that isnt there?

If that was directed at me, you've completely ignored everything I've written in which I said, "I'm not one to argue with LEOs," etc. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A LOOPHOLE. I was just intellectually curious. I don't think anyone in this thread is looking for a loophole. We're all just trying to make sure that we understand the law completely, and I find it curious that you label that as "keep trying to find a loophole."

saj111 wrote:i guess i'm missing something. why would you not want to show your chl to a leo when he asks for i d.

i'm not concerned with the exact wording of the law, if asked for i d by a leo i will also give him my chl whether i'm carrying or not (it's not often i'm not carrying.)

Exactly. You're not missing a thing. I stated in my OP that I'm not one to argue with a cop about ID. I was just intellectually curious if there was a distinction between CHL in public and CHL in your own home with regard to a CHL holder's ID requirements. My natural inclination is to be as cooperative as possible with LEOs at all times. I don't view them as the enemy.

jimlongley wrote:I wouldn't be carrying CONCEALED in my own home.

When I do carry in my home, it is not intentionally concealed. Sometimes, it is not concealed. Sometimes it is. When it is concealed, it is usually because I've either just prepared to go out, or have just returned from having been out of the house. Sometimes, it's just because I'm a little cold and I've donned a sweater or something that happens to cover the weapon...

...and there are lots of times I don't carry inside my own home - like in the shower, etc.

Anyway, it was just an "intellectual curiosity" kind of question.

I suspected that the ID requirement still stood. I just wasn't certain if the law drew a distinction between what a CHL holder is required to do in public versus in the privacy of his own home. Like I said, I'm not one to argue with a cop. I trust that he has a valid reason for asking for my identification - even if he chooses not to disclose that reason at the time.

I was recently involved in another discussion on a different gun board in which one member had asked specifically about ID requirements with regard to Texas CHLs. He received a number of replies - including from me - that CHL holders are required to produce TDL & CHL if asked by an officer. There was one lone holdout who castigated the rest of the members for being "sheeple" (I hate that word) for being too willing to show ID to an LEO. He claimed that he always challenged the LEO to state his reasons for wanting to see his ID, and if the reason wasn't good enough, he said he'd tell the officer that he had no cause to "see his papers" and then he walked away. Sovereign citizen, and all that...

I suggested the guy had a chip on his shoulder, which he denied. At least one Texas CHL instructor told him that the law doesn't require a Texas LEO to disclose his reason for asking for the ID, and that Texas law doesn't allow the officer's failure to disclose the reason as a valid defense to failure to provide the required ID. Thus, even if the officer didn't have a legitimate need to see the ID, the CHL holder is still guilty of failing to show the ID on request, and his CHL is subject to suspension.

Do you guys concur?

A strange question occurred to me this evening. Let's say you are carrying (concealed) inside your own home, and a police officer comes to your door to ask you some questions - doesn't matter why. The officer asks to see your identification as proof that this is your home.

Since you are in your own home, and the officer is on your property, are you required to show CHL along with TDL the same way you would be required to do out in public? I guess another way to phrase it would be, are there any exceptions at all to the circumstances under which you are required to present both TDL and CHL to an LEO who asks you for ID?

I'm not one of those people would argue with a cop about whether or not I am required to show him my ID. I'm just curious about this particular scenario.