19 yo traveling with gun in car

[srothstein]

Dave,

There is no law requiring a person that is not a CHL holder to answer any police officer's questions. The law that does require an honest answer says it is illegal to lie to a police officer about something that is material to an investigation. This puts you in a gray area, because the question is not material to the offense that was committed (traffic offense) but the officer may claim it was material to an investigation of some other crime without telling you what he was investigating. I don't think the case would stand up in court if he claimed you were lying about it, but there is no way to know for sure. I will say that I fully recognize the right to stay silent or lie, but I generally advise against it as a tactical choice. Police officer's don't like surprises or being lied to, so answering and being cooperative may get you a waring where refusing to answer or lying may get you arrested or ticketed.

On the second question, you get a very gray answer also. Merely being in possession of a weapon under the MPA does not justify a search. But, as Jumping Frog pointed out, SCOTUS has allowed a frisk of the person or car when there is a legal detention. There is a fine point he did not mention, but the officer must have an articulable reason why he believed that he was in danger other than being on a traffic stop. Obviously, telling the officer that you have a weapon under the MPA might be enough to justify the officer thinking he was in danger and justifying the search. Again, if you are fully in the law, the search should not be a problem, though I do not have 100% faith in every officer feeling this way.

[C-dub]

Dave,

There is no law requiring a person that is not a CHL holder to answer any police officer's questions. The law that does require an honest answer says it is illegal to lie to a police officer about something that is material to an investigation. This puts you in a gray area, because the question is not material to the offense that was committed (traffic offense) but the officer may claim it was material to an investigation of some other crime without telling you what he was investigating. I don't think the case would stand up in court if he claimed you were lying about it, but there is no way to know for sure. I will say that I fully recognize the right to stay silent or lie, but I generally advise against it as a tactical choice. Police officer's don't like surprises or being lied to, so answering and being cooperative may get you a waring where refusing to answer or lying may get you arrested or ticketed.

On the second question, you get a very gray answer also. Merely being in possession of a weapon under the MPA does not justify a search. But, as Jumping Frog pointed out, SCOTUS has allowed a frisk of the person or car when there is a legal detention. There is a fine point he did not mention, but the officer must have an articulable reason why he believed that he was in danger other than being on a traffic stop. Obviously, telling the officer that you have a weapon under the MPA might be enough to justify the officer thinking he was in danger and justifying the search. Again, if you are fully in the law, the search should not be a problem, though I do not have 100% faith in every officer feeling this way.

I have tried to respond with basically this answer twice, but couldn't get the wording right and just deleted them. Each time I began to ramble on and it ended up somewhere else.

[johnson0317]

Wow,

Once again, my ignorance amazes me! I had no idea this was possible. Of course, a year ago I did not know I could carry under the MPA...so...

Gonna have to think this through. Two beautiful, teenage daughters...16 and 17. Both shoot with me, both shoot well, both mature. I am feeling conflicted. Most of all, I am worried they might think that "my guns are their guns", just like everything else in the house.

RJ

[SlowDave]

Thanks so much Steve et al. I think my recommendations were in the right direction then. Only place I might need to reconsider is that I recommended him to answer truthfully if a LEO asked if he had a firearm in the car. Based on Steve's post, I might advise him to respectfully decline to answer that question. Seems like answering that question truthfully leads to enough gray area so that having your car searched is fairly likely to happen, which, as stated should not be a problem, but I'm not really ready to subscribe to living in a police state. I couldn't support lying to the police (or anyone) so seems like the best option would be to decline to answer the question. Or if you answer it and they ask to search your car, again decline, but if they insist, do not obstruct.

Interesting topic actually. Still reading up on the age thing. Thanks for all the feedback!

[Sandotex5]

It's always a hard decision to make regarding what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. I'm a 47 yo professional and have lived long enough to not worry about being arrogant and argumentative; I have enough resources and confidence to "make a point" if I feel it needs to be made if I get in a situation with the law. However, I worry about my 3 boys interacting with the Law, especially being an ethnic minority in the great state of Tejas-- I don't want my kids to run afoul of or cross an LEO and give them any reason to be detained. I've taught my kids to be "Yes Sir/No sir" with the police and to give no reason to be hassled. My kids have been stopped multiple times in Dallas suburbs and by Highland Park police (didn't blend in with the locals) at night and politely questioned and then let go-- those darn tail lights/signals seem to miraculously go out and then fix themselves! Even though I agree that they don't have to disclose, I've told them to do so when they are driving with my gun in the glove department (and I do like them to have it). I've always thought that a policeman would appreciate the honesty, especially if he is politely informed by a respectful, well-spoken youth he may be otherwise profiling...

[Liberty]

Things are a little different than it used to be. Just a few years ago when we had to depend on the traveling laws and the ridiculous restrictions that the courts have implied. Today it is much clearer that citizens have a right to be armed while driving through. LEOs understand this as well Some of us old timers are still feeling paranoid about the civil rights abuses in the past.

Wasn't that long ago when people were pulled out of their cars and arrested for simply exercising the right to be armed in their cars even though the 2nd amendment and the Texas traveling laws clearly said it was OK. Its pretty easy to understand why folks distrust LEOs and authorities after these not to long ago abuses. Things have changed though and these types of abuses aren't that common anymore.

We've come a long way, and there is no turning back.

[tazz0018]

[03Lightningrocks]

My daugter is 19 and she drives my car at times with my gun in the console. (She might even park it on a college campus...but based on her grades I can't be certain!)

yea me too, never know if they really go to class or to the pubs

They go to class so they can catch up on the sleep they missed while at the pubs.