Interesting. How about a couple of follow up questions:dac1842 wrote:First, as you all know, a peace officer has the authority to disarm you. You might not like it, but get over it, the law says he can do it. I have been stopped several times and only disarmed once. I was not the least bit offended by it. As a former LEO I completely understand it. No big deal.
Second, While I certainly agree that a CHL holder is the least likely place you will find a stolen weapon, there is that chance you might have bought a weapon from an individual and you did not know it was stolen. Of course, if that did occur it will probably still result in you going to jail for possession of a stolen weapon... sucks I know, but that is reality. IF I was still on the street I seriously doubt I would run the weapon of a CHL holder, the odds of finding one stolen is very slim. It sounds to me like someone found one and therefore they started running all them. Just an opinion.
Third, While at the time your background check was done to get your CHL you passed and were considered an upstanding citizen. Things happen, people change, people have bad days, and crap happens...Everyone thought Jeffery Dahmer was a good neighbor until a body part was found, then reality set it. Again the odds of a CHL holder going to the dark side are slim, it does happen.
The vast majority of the officers on the street fully support CHL carry. I was in HPD headquarters the other day, I disarmed prior to walking in and the officer and I engaged in a conversation about that. He asked why I disarmed, I told him simply that 1- I doubt I would need a gun in police headquarters, seems like guns would not be in short supply there, 2- If something did happen common sense says a civilian pulling a gun amid a bunch of uniforms could be hazardous to my health and well being...
1. When I'm stopped for a traffic violation, and LEO is permitted to observe inside my vehicle for signs of something suspicious. They are not allowed to open my trunk or my glove box unless there is probable cause to do so. The likelihood that I have drugs or stolen goods is probably higher than a CHL having a stolen gun but the courts have ruled against an extensive search. It could easily be said "while I have you stopped for speeding, let me search your trunk for drugs" with the same logic that you use in "while I have your gun in my hands, let me search the serial number to see if it is stolen". Please help me understand the difference.
2. There are lots of Texans who carry guns in their cars without a CHL. The likelihood that a non-CHL has a stolen gun is much greater than a CHL simply because all of the non-CHLs have not been vetted via the background check process. While your logic that a CHL could have gone bad since the background check was completed is possible, the statistics on the DPS website for CHLs in the life of the program suggest otherwise. If the blanket policy that all drivers with guns in their cars have to yield them for a serial number search, that seems to violate their Constitutional rights. How is a CHL only policy not discrimination? Unless the DPS has a written and enforced policy that every driver must disclose a gun and must permit it to be serial number checked, I think the DPS is impugning the program that it administers and the integrity of those who successfully pass it.