TexasCHLforum.com

gringo pistolero wrote: Now, would you care to respond to the concerns Oehamilton raised in the first post of this thread?

Sure you bet (thought I already had...)

Oehamilton wrote:Got stopped for a partially blocked tail light and license plate. Just got a warning....

But, they are conducting mandatory firearm checks for all stopped CHL drivers to verify that their firearm is not stolen!

Have you ever heard of a greater violation of your civil rights, discrimination and out right insult to all CHL holders?

Not a violation of civil rights, simply because one don't like what is legally being done inside the lines of authority drawn.

Insult to all CHL Holders.. well maybe at least an insult to those that are not violent criminals. Clearly there are those out there though http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/re ... vrates.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
that LEO's should be concerned with

gringo pistolero wrote:You might want to fix your signature to comply with forum rules before you criticize others. Just saying.

Thanks for the reminder... even if it was an attempt to be derogatory on a unrelated subject..which could have been done in a friendly way via PM or in forum. In any case I accept the rebuke and have fixed the signature.. My being out of the country and largely off the forum when the change took effect is no excuse.

Care to say something useful in response to the discussion at hand?

gringo pistolero wrote:You lost me. Maybe it was all the off topic hijacks but I'm not sure what irresponsible advice we're talking about. Is it some condescending dillweed supporting Obama or are we back on the topic of jerks using some pretense to seize and record the serial number of a handgun carried by a citizen who passed a more strict background check than cops in many agencies?

This
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 85#p738385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Followed by others along the way with user responses to emcee rib "solution"

To each his own... I just do not see emcee rib's "solution" as a responsible, useful or recommended course of action.

emcee rib wrote:Fixing the issue requires firing or disciplining the cops who go fishing and run serial numbers on concealed guns that were NOT IN PLAIN VIEW until the cop demanded the citizen reveal it. If you have the power to fix the problem cops, go and do that, and then I will listen to your advice. Until then, I have to use the methods available to me to work around the problems.

You miss the point entirely.

Best of luck with your "Solution"

emcee rib wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

No. There is no requirement to inform you are carrying. Not even for MPA.

There is a requirement to display a gun license under some circumstances, but I'm not sure what authority Texas has to compel someone to display a license issued by another state. Even before the law changed to drop the penalty, Texas would have had a tough time enforcing the statutory penalty in 411.187 on a Utah licensee.

Assuming you have a gun in the car or on you, but a OK license .and you get stopped.

"Sir do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?"

You can answer;
1:YES (then it becomes much the same as if you had handed him a TX CHL)
2: NO (a lie, and you get much more delayed if they find it, or otherwise come to know you have it)
3: Refuse to answer (a right for sure, but one that will cause you further delay)
4: Respond to the question with an answer that is not related to the question ( which will be noted and will cause you further delay )

A better solution would be to fix the issue, not come up with creative ways to maybe get around it.

Oehamilton wrote:So, what's next? Nothing? Just sit back and enjoy the descriminatory assumption that People with a CHL are thieves and let them run our serial numbers hoping to catch us in all our evil thieving ways?

And to add...
if with NO PC or RS your gun (item) can be considered possibly stolen, taken from you while you are detained (for an unrelated violation) the gun checked against whatever database the LEO is using to determine stolen property..

What else?
Can the LEO take my watch (that is on my wrist and in plain view) detain me and run it for stolen property check?

How about the Tires and wheels on my Shelby, an often stolen item. Can the LEO extend my detention (in addition to the traffic stop I was pulled over for) detain me further and "run" those numbers?.. They too are in plain sight..

The list goes on, that a LEO could confiscate from me, items in plain sight while being detained for a traffic infraction.... Where is the line? Is there a line?

Going by what many here believe,, If detained in a traffic stop, for a traffic infraction, any item in plain sight, even if it has NOTHING to do with the reason for the stop, the alleged infraction, or clear and obvious or likely evidence of a crime committed (bloody knife, bag of suspected drugs, crack pipe, car stereo with torn out wires), can be confiscated and checked against stolen property data bases.. Is that the common understanding of what is available to a LEO under current laws?

57Coastie wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

Just to muddy up the waters a bit, I would suggest that the legislature could enact a statute authorizing an LEO to stop a motor vehicle and detain the driver for any reason at all which might occur to the LEO.

Questions worthy of consideration:

Question (1): would this statute overrule the 4th Amendment?

Question (2): Does the statutory language quoted in red above overrule the 4th Amendment when interpreted to have no constraints?

Question (3): Are even our courts confusing the authority the legislature might bestow on an LEO, with whether or not a suspicion, cause, or what have you must be had before the authority allegedly granted by the legislature is constitutional in all cases, without exception, when exercised by an LEO?

Jim

Jim,, Good questions.

Might want to read though Illinois v. Lidster and the SCOTUS decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=02-1060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A juicy qoute "license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional."

C-dub wrote:From Jim's link.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

There it is ladies and gentlemen. We've mused about it off and on. The legality of being stopped in an open carry state just for openly carrying to check for a license without having done anything else wrong. We've pointed out that the police do not have the right to simply stop someone to check to see if they have a DL, but now that theory might be put to the test.

I did not realize this was still a question.. ??
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opini ... onID=20505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lujan v. State, No. PD-0303-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)

Texas Court of Criminal Appeal seems to have decided more then a year ago,, DL check points were legal in the state of TX.

and
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

gigag04 wrote:I was going to reply to some of the more relevant responses, but I see this going nowhere good methinks. Ill shoot a few of you a PM and call it good.

Honestly and sincerely;
From me at least, thank you for your perspective.

I get your not one to get worked up over disarming just because.. and I appreciate that.

gigag04 wrote:

bronco78 wrote: Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

Thank you
Polite, professional, truthful response..


I'd still have an issue with that action of course, and make said LEO's life marginally more difficult for his decision by pestering the department leadership, the media, the justice department, and anyone else I think I could professionally, politely poke to bring pressure on the department which allows, suggests, or advises it's officer to disarm citizens in what amounts to a stretch of the law’s intent. ..

"I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety"

That would apply to the edged weapon I carry as well, Im not obligated to inform you of... and is of more safety concern at that close distance then my gun.
It also applies to the other edged and or blunt force weapons at hand in my vehicle, also not required by law to be announced to the LEO.(I MUST tell you about the hand gun carried under CHL, I’m not obligated or required to say or answer you questions reference other weapons, I just can’t lie)

Bottom line, you (not actually YOU Gig, as I get, you don’t let your guard down regardless... )
THE LEO has made them self LESS safe, by “disarming” me, because as now you have the misconception that I am unarmed… a bad tactical position to be in.

Of course as I pose NO DANGER to a LEO under any imaginable condition.. .. Should one decide to disarm me of my lawfully concealed hand gun…never fear… the rifle, the edged weapons, and other items used to stop a threat, are of no threat to you officer….and we will just leave them where they normally reside thank you, while you write me a ticket for the tail light out or speeding violation..

gigag04 wrote:. The ofc only needs to articulate reasonable suspicion that contacting an armed person presents a possible (thus reasonable suspicion) threat to his safety. Any cop worth his salt can at least explain that to a jury.

Thanks for the response

Scenario:

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

gigag04 wrote:
And yes - the only CHL holders I've disarmed we're drunk and getting arrested for DWI.

And good on you for doing it.... I no more want a intoxicated CHL dude on the streets then I do a intoxicated driver.

I have a HUGE issue with LEO's disarming, just because they can.. the law is clear, the authority to disarm exists only IF "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."

I look forward to an officer articulating his belief I, the officer, or another individual needs protection from my holstered gun.

Im reasonable sure, the end result will at the least include an apology from the department chief, and implied "re look at policy or training" should I ever get disarmed.

As I can say for myself, should I get pulled over, I will present the text book "this guy is not a safety concern" contact.


GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
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. The peace officer shall return the handgun to
the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if
the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer,
license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not
violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation
that results in the arrest of the license holder.
\

Jumping Frog wrote:If they take just the gun from you -- as they are allowed to do by statute for "officer safety" -- then the serial number is in plain sight.

Is that what the law states the LEO can do???/

411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's 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.

As that is what the law states.. I assume, an officer would need to be capable of articulating what condition, event or circumstances were present for him to consider the CHL in possession of his gun to be threat?

If I get stopped for a license plate light out.... I pull over as soon as it is safe, roll my window down, turn off my radio, keep my hands on the steering wheel and great the officer with direct eye contact and a verbal salutation....What condition or circumstance exists that the license holder, officer, or another individual needs protection from? The mere presence of a gun? Of which many times will be present anyway under MPA and never announced to the LEO.. or present anyway and never announced by the criminal.
Of the three officers I pal around with,, none of the three are in the “disarm CHL” group, so they really cannot articulate what they would say on a routine and reoccurring basis to justify disarming every CHL’er and checking the gun to be stolen.

Your not the first to report this silly practice..

Personally, I would expend many hours of my time to make it a painful policy to inflect on us.