TexasCHLforum.com

We have very littel access in the field. All we see in the field is what they have been handled for locally. If have been convicted of murder in LA, we would never know. We have access to NCIC warrants, but no histories.

We run a CCH (complete criminal history) when we get the guy to jail as long as it is a Misd B or above. If I instanter someone on traffic, I would never know what he has been handled for outside of the county.

Glenn

The felon thing came along because any of those two people that strated this discussion, may or may not have been prior felons. It is in the way our system is set up.

Ofter times an officer will tell dispatch to stamp a complaint for UCW but it is really going to be Felon in Poss....

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on this one.

Glenn

Good Lord, I am all over the place on this!! I found myself arguing with another officer tonight that if you meet the presumption of travelling, you are off limits.

It should also be remembered that just because a complaint was stamped for UCW, does not mean it was not filed as being a felon in possession of a firearm. So when the newspaper got the information from us, that is the way the complaint may have been stamped. As the DA prepares to take it to trial and researches the case, they may or may not have found the person was a prior felon.

Understand also that there are times when the person is a prior felon, but the DA's office will not take the charge of UCW. This is especially true if the courts are in another county or even more so if the courts were out of state.

Good point Charles about them getting out of the car. If the person gets out of the car and the gun is in the waistband...click, click.

Glenn

Good points all, though grey areas and officer discretion are good things.

Now, what we need in order to have all this non-sense stop to increase the the criteria for travelling.

If, for instnace you have been convicted of any sort of Misd A or B in the last 5 or 10 years, it would disqualify. That would cover car burglars, dope smokers, etc...

I fear that if a thug is the test case, the courts will rule against our side and we lose ground. Why would anyone care if a thug/thug can not carry a gun in his car, but you still can.

Honest, law abiding people, have little to fear.

Glenn

I used to think if a person met the requirements for a presumption of travelling then there should be no problem. I even argued that point to other officers.

The more I think about the definition and the way it is written, I have to now agree that because one is presumed to be travelling
does not mean they are.

I can not speak for everyone, but I can not see letting an aggravated thug keep a gun on him so he can go rape someone's wife, or rob a store, or shoot a citizen, when there is a tool there to stop that.

It would be idiotic to stop someone on traffic, in a neighborhood they do not live in, at 0330, check them and find out they have been arrested for burglary of a motor veh, criminal trespass, etc... several times and not arrest for UCW.

It is beyond me why someone favors letting a dope head burglar ride around with a gun in his car and not want it stopped.

I will also say that I do not have a law degree and for us to argue about this is like DiFi and Ted Kennedy having an argument over the 9mm vs the .45 ACP. (assuming none of us have law degrees, save chas.)

Glenn

The "Snake" is no more. The stripes are straight again.

Holding these two up as our example of wrongful prosecution is like those morons holding Gary Graham up as a poster child for ending the death penalty.

I do not understand how anyone that is a responsible gun owner would support a person who is in a high crime, high drug area, who is associated with drugs and more than likely involved with drug commerce at the time. This is exactly the attitude that is going to lose more rights for us. The average Joe on the street would support these arrests. The average Joe would understand he would not be arrested for having a gun in his car, like these two.

If you support these two, then you are naive. (Not a personal attack on anyone, I am sorry if that offends.)

Example: If a W/M approx 6' 3", 350 pounds, with brown hair has been holding up convenience stores, and an officers on patrol, late at night, rolls up on a car behind a convenience store w/ a person matching that description he will lawfully detain him (I hope). If during that detention he finds a handgun in the car, and does not arrest for the UCW, he is a lazy sluff.

Did the guy meet the presumption of traveling? Sure. Should he be arrested? Sure. To say "no" is irresponsible and defies logic.

This is not going to be a problem for a law abiding citizen, no need to get paranoid.

Glenn

I would suggest anyone interested in these cases from Baytown should get a copy of the cases under the Freedom Of Information Act and read them.

These two cases are not ones that we as gun owners want to hold up as our "victims" of overzealous cops--trust me.

Glenn

I was going to ask if anyone had seen this, or if they already used their copy of the Baytown Scum for toilet paper.

I will not say much about this as it directly affects me, but you all know how I feel about this.

The law is the law, regardless of how anti-gunners want to keep saying they are confused. The only reason they are confused is because they do not want to accept the fact that if a person meets the criteria, they are travelling----period. No gray area, no confusion.

And for the record: IMO, though I am no attorney, this is not a NEW LAW, it is only a definition added to an existing law.

Glenn