ID in the home...

[The Annoyed Man]

My contention is that CHL laws do not apply to me on my private property even if I have a CHL. I know it may take case law to bear that out, but I firmly believe the legislature did not intend to affect the privacy of one's home when the CHL laws were enacted.

While I don't care enough about it to make an issue of it, that possibility was what motivated my asking the question in the first place in my OP. I think there is a societal presumption that a man's home is his castle. We even have that codified to a certain extent into law here in Texas in the form of the Castle doctrine. If we, as individual citizens, are not sovereign within the confines of our own homes, then are we sovereign at all? For me, philosophically, I cooperate within the confines of my own home because I choose to, not because I feel that I am required to. But I have no idea if my philosophical inclination actually squares with the law, and that is why I posed the question.

OTH, is the presumption of sovereignty within one's own home just a myth? After all, there are legal limits to what we may do within the confines of our own homes - even in privacy. For instance, if I choose to grow pot inside the house, I'm still breaking the law. Zoning requirements may limit how I can use my home. The tax code places limits on how much I can deduct from my taxes for using my home as my place of business. I may not discharge a firearm inside of my home for recreational purposes. Etc., etc., etc.

[The Annoyed Man]

To one person it's "looking for loopholes" and to another it's "trying to understand the law." They're essentially the same thing, with different motives. I choose to believe in the more innocent motive unless someone goes out of their way to ascribe the other to their actions.

Thank you for clarifying that better than I did.

[seamusTX]

I think there is a societal presumption that a man's home is his castle. We even have that codified to a certain extent into law here in Texas in the form of the Castle doctrine. If we, as individual citizens, are not sovereign within the confines of our own homes, then are we sovereign at all?

Leviathan. We are far down this road.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

Interesting reply, Jim. I'll confess that I've never read Hobbes - at least intentionally. I'll check it out.

In any case, I looked up this Wiki reference for some biographical background on Hobbes, and I found these three paragraphs about Leviathan interesting:

In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments - based on social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war.

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected:[10] the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers.

I think that last bit would put me in opposition to Hobbes's premise.

[seamusTX]

That is my understanding.

Hobbes was superseded by the classical liberal point of view that won the American Revolution and framed the Constitution.

However, there is always a tendency to surrender personal sovereignty in exchange for peace and prosperity, or a pale imitation thereof.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

However, there is always a tendency to surrender personal sovereignty in exchange for peace and prosperity, or a pale imitation thereof.

And we know what the founders thought of that!

[seamusTX]

We do, but even within the founding generation, there was tension between liberty and security, and the need for a balance of power versus a strong executive.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

EVen so, I doubt very much they would approve of how far down the Hobbesian road we've traveled. Even Hamilton would have probably been appalled.

[seamusTX]

I agree.

When the founders got over the shocks of artificial lighting, motor vehicles, etc., and started to digest what was going on, they would think that the U.K. had somehow reconquered the U.S.

They would weep into their hands.

- Jim

[wb5kje]

I was pulled over about two months ago for speeding (warning ticket THANK GOD). Anyway I was driving my wife's car with her in it and NO handgun on me or in the vehicle. After the officer returned to my vehicle to return my DL he asked me if I was armed. I answered no. He (the DPS Officer) told me in the futher to ALWAYS let any officer that is going to run your DL about your weapon status. He futher explained that when the DL is ran it is flagged that you posses a CHL.

[retrieverman]

I can understand showing DL and CHL during a traffic stop and have always complied with the law, but when a LEO is on my property, I don't believe I have any obligation to show them anything and won't without a REALLY good reason.

[seamusTX]

Does everyone understand that the really good reason involves a ride to the station, bail, your name in the newspaper, and further legal fees?

If not, please backtrack and read Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan.

- Jim

[mgood]

Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't see a LEO knocking on a door and asking for ID.

If you're suspected of something, it could involve a whole range of things that will eventually lead to you providing ID (or them finding it while serving a search warrant).
If they're looking for you specifically and just want to verify that you are the person they're looking for . . .
Are you John Smith?
Yes.
Mr. Smith, we have a warrant for your arrest. Please turn around and place your hands behind you.
But what if . . .
Are you John Smith?
None of your business!
I'm not sure, but I think they may still procede to Sir, please turn around and place your hands behind you.

If they have no warrant and are just fishing for information, and you're in your own home, then I think that's where people think they can refuse to provide ID. Maybe they can, I'm not sure.

But I'm seeing this whole question as more along the lines of a burglary down the street and the police just want to know if you saw anything suspicious. If you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the investigation, then they'd want to verify your name so they'd know who gave them what statement. They might ask for your ID or they might take your word that you are Henry Homeowner and not Bill Burglar. (LEOs, tell me what is SOP here, please.)

[srothstein]

In my experience, the most common time cops will ask for ID when you are in your home is if you or someone called them there. If you called to report a crime, the cop may ask for your ID so he can write your information down accurately instead of asking you to spell your name and then get your date of birth. Some report forms will also ask for a DL number, but it is not really necessary (I know of some that ask for SSN but I never asked for it and never got in trouble).

The second reason is if the cop is there in response to a report of trouble, such as a disturbance. This could be you and your spouse arguing or a neighbor that complained of loud music, etc. In this case, the officer is also looking for your ID to prove who you really are in addition to getting a name for a report.

The way I read the law, in either case you would be required to give your CHL with the DL. The second case would clearly require it as the officer is probably about to run you anyway. The first case will probably not have the officer running your information so he would never know.

And yes, just as if you have a gun in your car when you are stopped, the imposition is harsher on CHL's than on others. I know that in neither case is a non-CHL required to actually produce any ID, just give the information. I see the law as requiring the production from a CHL though.

And yes, I could be wrong and the lack of requirement to actually produce anything might negate this law, or at least be a strong defense in court.

[somedudefromhouston]

If one is in ones home or on property under ones direct control , there isn't any reason for a CHL correct? One could open carry, conceal whatever right? The CHL would apply at the property line in my mind. So much for reasonable thinking. I was at my place of business,( I own the business and the building) and a cop was in the parking lot for a long time. I went to the lot with a camera and was told "DO NOT PHOTOGRAPH THIS CAR! " Well its a marked HPD car in my lot, in daylight, in plain view of my surveillance cameras the entire time. HE piled out of the car demanding to see my ID. Its not on me, I don't carry it or a gun at work. HE continued to demand to see some ID. Texas Penal code 39.02 is plain on the topic. One does not have to carry papers, at least not yet. One is required to answer the questions, if asked, name, DOB, place of birth. This "professional" followed me into my business after I told him I to wait outside. Then he followed me into my office, after again being asked to wait outside a private office. He followed me and stood next to me behind my desk while I phoned an attorney.
A license was on the desk and put in his outstretched palm while he yelled I must "show some ID NOW". Next thing I know I am under arrest, sitting at my desk! He claimed he was "assaulted"by a TDL delivered to the palm . I would not so I must be shown the force. Downtown, night in the slammer, first time ever at 47 YO. Court, lawyer, dismissal. Now its civil suit time. I have many issues about the matter. It may all come out in Federal court .
A cop car parked anywhere is subject to being photographed , as are cops at work, ask the Ibarra brothers.
I may not be willing to show ID to some one who is not entitled to it in the future either. Yeah, slow learner. Its all in the attitude of the asker and the situation at the moment.
Like the earlier poster , I might ask that they leave the premises and perhaps a warrant is needed to pursue any further discussions , in the presence of an attorney. I am not wealthy, nor do I have excess time to waste going to court on bull charges that are dismissed . But I must do what I feel is right.
Silver lining; my main hang up to getting a CHL was the fact that no one has ever had my prints. Since that hurdle was cleared against my will, why not?