Similar to the DPS officer running the Serial thread, but...

[PvilleStang]

I was pulled over for the second trip in a row to Austin (no front license plate). The officer asked, "May I remove your weapon from your holster?" after which I responded in the affirmative. First off, I've never done anything so drastic, but I wanted to punch the guy in the face when he put my gun directly on the roof of my car . I mean, let me get a towel out for you or something, don't just put a metal gun directly on my car! But then he ran the serial numbers on his little fishing trip. So for future reference, is their any legal recourse for answering his request with a, no, I don't want you to pull my gun? I don't know if there's a clause similar to refusing to blow (since said officer didn't demand my weapon, rather asked, quite politely, I might add). All in all, not a bad stop, as it was another warning, and I was back to the trip in 10 minutes or so, to pass all the stupid soccer moms who love to ride the left lane at 5 under.

[seamusTX]

Sure. Your survivors can sue the agency.

- Jim

[Abraham]

Be grateful he didn't drop it, as was reported a little while back to someone else in an LEO (in that case a Game Warden) encounter...

[E.Marquez]

I don't believe you have a choice, though a equally polite counter offer ,might work. " Sir no issue at all with disarming,, to protect my fire arm and car, would it be ok if I disarm, clear the weapon and place it on the seat or glove box?" At worst he will say no, but at least it is courteous discussion and he has been placed on notice you would find it inappropriate to place the weapon in a location that is likely to cause damage to the car or gun. If he continued done the "I will remove the weapon from your holster" (which by the way places the LEO in a more dangerous situation from a reasonable skilled opponent, then if he maintained proper position and had you disarm) then at least offer a suggestion as to something to set the weapon on (rag, coat, something other than the roof of a nice car )

Do they unload and clear your weapon when they disarm you? or is there now a loaded gun out in the open not under personal control of a qualified person?

If the weapon is on your roof, and they have to go back to the cruiser to,, whatever,, do they take the gun with them?

Asking for you to disarm is unneeded.
Disarming you them self’s without you being in cuffs or at least a back up officer providing cover, if you truly are a BG, is quick way to get dead. Luckily for these disarm minded LEO's, the threat from a law abiding citizen that has a CHL is so low, that it's likely they will never encounter a CHL possessing BG intending to do them harm.

Having dinner with two local LEO’s today, from two different departments (husband and wife) Gona ask them again what was taught in cop school, training officer, what they hear on the street from other LEO’s about disarming CHL folks. They have told me before, it’s not taught , not policy at either department and not a personal policy in general, but of course always an option if the situation warranted.

[mctowalot]

Just curious, did he tell you to put your hands up or to stand a certain way?

[flb_78]

It all could have been avoided if the plate was mounted properly.

[austin-tatious]

It all could have been avoided if the plate was mounted properly.

It's not necessary to mount the plate. The law only requires it to be visible from the front.

I and many others with "special" bumper/valence/other on their "special" cars (like pvillestang no doubt has) put it on the dash so it's visible through the windshield. That meets the requirement. And you don't mess up the body work with holes or the visual lines with an unsightly plate.

Re: the disarm issue, I like the approach of bronco78...except I would add "for your safety and mine" to the request.

So far I've been stopped twice in the last year versus none in the previous 10 years. Both times the officer handed back the CHL with no comment whatsoever. So I'm curious if the LEO was Austin PD?

[glbedd53]

I think I would have just asked him not to put the gun on my car. I know people that would have steam coming out their ears if you put anything on their car. One more time, it seems like it's always DPS. Whats their problem? From the stories I've heard it sounds like you get better treatment when you're stopped out of state than by our own DPS. I think I'll write my state rep and senator about it.

[PvilleStang]

Brenham P.D., actually. He first asked me if I was carrying, then if it was loaded and chambered, where the weapon was located (at 6 o'clock) then he asked if I minded if he reached back there and removed said weapon. He unholstered the weapon, and placed it directly on the roof of my vehicle while he looked at something, then grabbed the gun and walked back to his vehicle to finish his fishing trip. While in his vehicle, he unloaded the weapon and gave it back to me slide locked back and mag in the other hand. Funny thing was I had two guns in my travel bag and a shotgun in the backseat, which he let be, while taking my CCW.

[Ropin]

It's not necessary to mount the plate. The law only requires it to be visible from the front.

I don't have any law to cite on this one, but I can tell you from personal experience that not all LEO's have this interpretation.

Several months ago, I was headed to a gun show at Amon Carter in Fort Worth. My front plate, which had been knocked off the front bumper of my truck was on the dash, visible through the windshield. As I drove aimlessly around seeking a parking space, a FW officer flagged me down as we passed each other and offered assistance. I explained I was trying to park, and he directed me to a garage I'd been unaware of. He then told me that my plate was not legal where it was, indicating that it had to be on the front-most portion of the vehicle. I thanked him and he sent me on my way without any further ado. So...no ticket for documentation...maybe because he made that rule up himself; or maybe because where we were would have caused a major traffic logjam if he had taken the time to cite me. I don't really know; I'm glad it turned out the way it did, and I went home after the show and remounted the plate.

YMMV.

[Keith B]

Texas Transportation Code § 502.404 only states displayed at the 'front and rear'. Nothing is stated about front-most point. So the officer was interpreting this himself. Now, if he wants, he can write you a ticket, you can go fight it, potentially win on a technicality, but now you have wasted a lot of time and potential expense.

[E.Marquez]

Texas Transportation Code § 502.404 only states displayed at the 'front and rear'. Nothing is stated about front-most point. So the officer was interpreting this himself. Now, if he wants, he can write you a ticket, you can go fight it, potentially win on a technicality, but now you have wasted a lot of time and potential expense.

If "HE" can’t see it from where he is in front, then your likely to get the ticket your asking for. If it's attached to the windshield as I have seen at times then it is impeding your view and again can get you a ticket.. if it is flat on the dash, then it likely cannot be seen from many positions in front of the vehicle as a front bumper mounted plate would be. That’s what the LEO is likely to tell the judge, who is like to agree as he, probably has a plat attached to front FRONT of his vehicle.

Then there is the whole definition of the word FRONT
: the forward part or surface
: position ahead of a person or of the foremost part of a thing
Couple the common usage and definition of the word front with an officer standing in court saying from the front he could clearly see the bumper and the manufactures designed location for the plate, but could not read the plate as it rested on the dash.. and we can guess what the judge will decide.

Right wrong or whatever… it is what it is. I don’t like the plate on the front of my S197, but it’s required. I don’t like the idea of LEO places his hands on me or my lawfully carried weapon, but it’s the law, so I’ll deal with it if I ever have to.

BTW, neither close friends (Husband and wife LEO’s in two different departments) said it was taught in training to disarm as a rule, just that they can. And it was not taught that if you decided to, reaching in and doing it your self was the “right” way. Both also said, they nor their fellow officers have an issue with CCW, and would not disarm as a rule or policy on that issue alone.

[terryg]

I don't believe you have a choice, though a equally polite counter offer ,might work. " Sir no issue at all with disarming,, to protect my fire arm and car, would it be ok if I disarm, clear the weapon and place it on the seat or glove box?"

I really like that response. The only thing I would add is 'slowly'. "Sir no issue at all with disarming, to protect my fire arm and car, would it be ok if I slowly disarm, clear the weapon and place it on the seat or glove box?" That way you are also showing that you are accounting for his role in risk assessment.

[Texas Size 11]

Sure. Your survivors can sue the agency.

- Jim

That was funny...

[austin-tatious]

Texas Transportation Code § 502.404 only states displayed at the 'front and rear'. Nothing is stated about front-most point. So the officer was interpreting this himself. Now, if he wants, he can write you a ticket, you can go fight it, potentially win on a technicality, but now you have wasted a lot of time and potential expense.

If "HE" can’t see it from where he is in front, then your likely to get the ticket your asking for. If it's attached to the windshield as I have seen at times then it is impeding your view and again can get you a ticket.. if it is flat on the dash, then it likely cannot be seen from many positions in front of the vehicle as a front bumper mounted plate would be. That’s what the LEO is likely to tell the judge, who is like to agree as he, probably has a plat attached to front FRONT of his vehicle.

Then there is the whole definition of the word FRONT
: the forward part or surface
: position ahead of a person or of the foremost part of a thing
Couple the common usage and definition of the word front with an officer standing in court saying from the front he could clearly see the bumper and the manufactures designed location for the plate, but could not read the plate as it rested on the dash.. and we can guess what the judge will decide.

Right wrong or whatever… it is what it is. I don’t like the plate on the front of my S197, but it’s required. I don’t like the idea of LEO places his hands on me or my lawfully carried weapon, but it’s the law, so I’ll deal with it if I ever have to.

I can see how your interpretation could make sense to a motivated officer and a judge might agree. My feeble memory tells me it used to say something like "visible from the front". Either it's been changed since I last looked it up, or my memory fails me. I agree, however, with Keith B. For my car, the front plate is actually attached via suction cups inside the front windshield on the right side by the pillar (highly visible from the front and not impeding vision) and I will keep it there until further notice.