TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Art Acevedo thinks we're doing it wrong:

"If the law requires you to have a CHL in order to open carry, then how do you prohibit officers from checking if you have that CHL in the first place?" he said.

Same way as they deal with people with driver's licenses.

From what I hear, there ate already plenty of jaywalking stops around 6th St.

A-R wrote:In multiple recent threads, mainly involving discussion of whether you're required to identify yourself to a LEO but also in other topics, I've seen the phrase "probable cause" used in a context that suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of this and other similar terms on the part of the person using it.

I'm neither a lawyer nor legal expert, but I have completed some training/instruction on these topics and, using simple Google search, have found these links that may prove helpful to a better understanding of current differentiation between various police contacts and the level of information necessary for police to legally take certain actions.

In a nutshell:
- probable cause is sufficient for arrest, search, and seizure;
- reasonable suspicion is sufficient for temporary detention, formal investigation, pat down/frisk etc
- mere suspicion or a "hunch" is sufficient for a consensual or voluntary contact

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol ... top-view=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=42007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as specifically related to Texas law about identifying yourself to LEO:

PC 38.02 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GC 411.205 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;