TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:I don't think there is any doubt that you're armed when the gun is within the "lunge" area of the car, while you're in the car...

Are you guys saying it STILL applies once you've been removed from the car? That was PArrow's point.

I would have to believe for the purposes of a conviction, if the Officer witness you exit the vehicle and then finds a gun in a "lunge" area (and you were not supposed to be in possession of said weapon) you would 100% be convicted no matter where you were standing.

If we are just talking about whether the officer should have retrieved the gun when he was out of the "lunge" area, I am going to say no.

I am no cop, but I would have to think I am safer with a suspect away from a weapon, then I am bending over on the side of the road and shuffling through a "suspects" car with nobody watching the very person I felt like I had to disarm.


I am all about the "lock" method when stepping out of the car. Simply lock the door and step out.

Officer- "Why did you lock your car?"

Me- "Creature of habit, I always hit the button when I step out so I don't forget."

Scott in Houston wrote:

PArrow wrote:I'll give you the on or about your person, but if the gun is in the center console of your car and you are standing at the back bumper I don't believe it's "on or about your person. About would imply within easy reach.

I can't find the case, but the courts disagree with this. Having it in your car is considered on or about your person... in particular the "about your person" part.
When he asked if was armed, a gun sitting literally underneath my elbow, counts. This stop could be real ugly had I tried to say I wasn't armed.

Here is one....

Contreras v. State, 853 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st District] 1993) “The statute requires only a particular form of possession: carrying on or about the person, which includes, in our modern view, the interior of one’s vehicle.”

gigag04 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

Gosh you have me totally pegged. I'll move this to the top of my to do list. Right after working full time at night to support my growing family and finishing my engineering degree.

I find outsider opinions on how to best to engage the criminal element are usually well informed, productive suggestions that all of us dumb cops could learn from and really make a difference.

Cheers, expert

No problem. I may be alone here and forgive me if I am but the continuous theme of you saying things to incite and then telling those that take exception to it that "we don't know the hard streets" or "trying working in the hood" or "cheers expert" is old.

I'll leave this thread to get back on track.

bronco78 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

benenglishtx wrote:Surely I'm not the only one to utilize this strategy, am I?

Probably.

I can keep a straight face while taking someone to jail for failing to signal continuously within 100 ft of turning.

Really, that's a jailable offense?

In Texas, Class C charges are all criminal acts. There are a couple of exceptions where arrests are not allowed such as speeding.\.. but failing to signal a turn IS one of the arrest-able ones.

If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

benenglishtx wrote:Surely I'm not the only one to utilize this strategy, am I?

Probably.

I can keep a straight face while taking someone to jail for failing to signal continuously within 100 ft of turning.

VMI77 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.

I agree, it is very much a personal decision on what exercising a right is worth. What I always find very odd on this board is that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment there are people here who would (literally) give their life for it.

Then, when the subject changes to the 4th Amendment a certain percentage of folks immediately are willing to give up their rights just to keep from upsetting an LEO or because "they have nothing to hide, so why not."

If an LEO gets upset because I am lawfully carrying a weapon and won't give him consent to search that is on him, not me. I always decline respectfully (the sentence usually starts with "Officer, I mean this with no disrespect to you or the job your are trying to do...) and I expect the same respect in return. If an Officer cannot provide that respect he needs to find a new line of work.

For me personally no one right is more important to me than another. The are all my rights and I will exercise them as I see fit.

To each his own though!

VMI77 wrote: I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.



I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Jim Beaux wrote:

A-R wrote: 1. It's not a fishing expedition, the Texas statute gives LEOs clear authority to disarm a CHL
2. Armed and carrying are clearly defined in Texas law as "on or about" a person, in other words, "within reach" and by case law as including the "lunge area" of vehicles even when subject is temporarily outside the vehicle. It would be highly dangerous for an officer to obtain weapon from inside vehicle by reaching in while subject is still inside - thus, remove subject, then remove weapon (this is all of course dependent on officer having justification to do this in first place - a grey area)

One heck of a stretch you got going here....If this incident wasnt a fishing expedition explain why it wasnt. How is standing behind the vehicle, a minimum distance of 12 -15 feet, consistent with being "within reach". Also provide the parameters of a lunge area.

100% Fishing Expedition as evidenced by the questions the LEO asked. I am not an LEO, nor do I claim to know what tactics work best but I would never, ever turn my back to a "suspect" on the side of the road and stick my head in a car to look for ANYTHING without another officer being present.

Very, very foolish and the officer is very fortunate he was dealing with a good guy.