TexasCHLforum.com

Not a violation of civil rights, simply because one don't like what is legally being done inside the lines of authority drawn.

Just because its a law, doesn't mean that it does violate my rights or discriminating.

Maybe I'm not not calling it the right thing....


What's the difference between running a CHL's gun's serial number to make sure his gun is not stolen just because he's a CHL holder verses a black man getting stopped in a white neighborhood just because he's black to make sure he's not a criminal?

So, what's next? Nothing? Just sit back and enjoy the descriminatory assumption that People with a CHL are thieves and let them run our serial numbers hoping to catch us in all our evil thieving ways?

One could argue that the fee and price of a fun keeps the poor from obtaining a CHL and this is discriminatory.

It should be free and we should give everyone that wants a CHL and passes.

Why do we have to register to vote?

"One cannot observe the voter citizenship inside the voter box. [...] but since it is reasonable to consider only those quantities in a theory that can be measured, it seemed natural to me to introduce them only as entities, as representatives of voter citizenship, so to speak."

"But you don't seriously believe that only observable quantities should be considered in a voter fraud theory?"

"I thought this was the very idea that your Conservative Theory is based on?"

"Perhaps I used this kind of reasoning, but it is nonsense nevertheless. [...] In reality the opposite is true: only the theory decides what can be observed."

At this point, we are in a special scenario.

The citizenship and voter rights of a person cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily unbiased certainty. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of a citizen and not a citizen. To measure a citizen while in a voting box would kill citizens voter rights.

We know of voter fraud theory, of course, but We feel discouraged, not to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental liberalism, which appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualisability with out measuring the voter.

The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in liberalism. In liberalism, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of this country: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in liberalism. If in an exact science, such as liberalism, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of human nature, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?

Voter ID is desired to address/prevent problems we Texans see else where in our country as well as in our state. Those that oppose with out a viable alternative solution, just crying "discrimination" and "voter suppression" know there is a growing problem and want it because they are using this gaping hole in our system to their benefit.

Back to the Orignial post....

It's not about disarming, thought that be a little unsettling, it's the assumption that CHL holders carry stolen guns so we need to check all of them. Guilty 1st and a gun check to prove your innocence.

I would think it more probable to mistype the serial number and the computer search returns a stolen match then to find a CHL holder with a stolen gun.

It rhymes with suppressive...

I thought that if you're a white male, you had to suck it up and take all the racism, descrimination, civil rights violation and what ever else that "they" wanted.

And/Or

If someone doesn't like what you says or do to someone and that person is not a white male you're a racist and you can only be motivated by race.

Blah blah blah....yes I digressed.

I don't see where there was probable cause to think that I as a danger. That's the only time a CHL should be, but if a CHL is a danger, then shouldn't his ability to have a CHL be in question all together? Unless the CHL holder has probable cause to use deadly force. All the CHL holders I know would only be a danger to someone if he or his family was in imminent danger. Good luck disarming them then.

Probable cause requires a much greater amount of proof than reasonable suspicion. This is invoked for searching your clothes for evidence, searching your vehicle, and arresting you.

Police may search suspects without getting a search warrant, and the search will not violate the Fourth Amendment, only if probable cause to search exists. In Maryland v. Pringle, the United States Supreme Court stated that: “[t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt,” which must be accompanied by suspicion directly pointing to the individual / particular suspect who is being searched. Probable cause has been described by some Virginia courts as requiring somewhere around a 40% likelihood that some crime is taking place.

Probable cause without a warrant is determined by the officer who is allowed to consider all of his observations about the suspect and his property, the things and conditions around the suspect, any statements made, informant tips, the suspect’s behavior and conduct, in addition to the officer’s knowledge, training and experience. The courts judge whether the officer properly determined that there was probable cause to search a suspect by applying a perspective of “an objectively reasonable police officer.”

A recent Court of Appeals decision described probable cause as follows:

Probable cause “does not demand any showing that [the officer's] belief be correct or more likely true than false” that a criminal offense had occurred or was occurring. Thus, this Court need not find that it was “more likely true than false” that appellant was disregarding Officer Morris’s signal or attempting to escape or elude Officer Morris; rather, probable cause is a “flexible, common-sense standard” that in the totality of the circumstances would warrant a “person of reasonable caution to believe” that appellant was disregarding Officer Morris’s signal or attempting to escape or elude Officer Morris. Furthermore, under the probable cause standard, police officers are “not required to possess either the gift of prophecy or the infallible wisdom that comes only with hindsight. They must be judged by their reaction to circumstances as they reasonably appeared to trained law enforcement officers to exist” at that time.
Proffitt v. Commonwealth, Va: Court of Appeals 2011

...so the officer thought I had stole my gun

I'd like to thank everyone for their input in to my experience. I am working on a letter, voicing my concerns. You have helped me greatly. I will be using the complaint affidavit (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/OIG/complaint.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and following their required guidelines. Whom else do you think, if any, should I copy?

Texas Department of Public safety .... Highway Patrol.

And he removed my firearm from my hip...and did have trouble clearing my 1911