TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:Makes me wonder if she were really arrested for failing to put her kids in seat belts or some hissy-fit or inappropriate remark that the officer decided to teach her a lesson over.

As with most appeals, the judges decide a case based on their personal beliefs about justice and the law. Then have their clerks write the legal decision that supports their initial views. In this case, the decision was not unanimous. There were three dissenting justices.

In this case the court sided with the police. The court's decision was partially based on the premise that this type of arrest was not common and would not lead to further abuse by the police [my interpretation]: "Noticeably absent from the parade of horribles is any indication that the "potential for abuse" has ever ripened into a reality. In fact, as we have pointed out in text, there simply is no evidence of widespread abuse of minor-offense arrest authority.

gringo pistolero wrote:

WildBill wrote:It's amazing how long those memories and feelings stay around.

I wrote about my bad experience on page 9. I already forgave them, but I will never forget, and I can't trust them or their agency until they change their ways.

I can't find the post you are referring to.

talltex wrote:Although it was 30+ years ago, I've done more than weekend ride alongs. I worked 2 years for a Sheriff's department while finishing my college degree, in a force of about 15 deputies. Out of that group, there were 2 guys that I witnessed abuse their position a number of times. They were verbally abusive to people and would intimidate and threaten them with a night in jail for an imagined "smirk" on their face, then later laugh about how they "really put the fear of God into that boy". At the time I was 20 years old and a new kid there and I didn't say or do anything about it. I felt guilty at the time and for years afterward for not speaking up and trying to stop it, and I'm sure that affects my perception of comments sometimes.

It's amazing how long those memories and feelings stay around.

68blackbird wrote:

Surely I'm not the only one to utilize this strategy, am I?

I am quite certain I could not pull that one off, besides, I would think "some" may take real offense to your "remarks", which could turn the incident into something worse for you, besides, what happens IF he takes you up on your "converstaion"?

68blackbird - Reagarding this post, I think that your signature line speaks volumes.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

benenglishtx wrote:Surely I'm not the only one to utilize this strategy, am I?

Probably.

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Regarding #2 -- Do you have some source for this requirement when carrying under MPA?

This topic has been debated on the forum and I don't remember any clear ruling on this. It is my opinion that if one has a CHL one is carrying under the authority of CHL laws and not MPA.

That is neither my, nor the OP's point. He wanted to know about carry in a car WITHOUT a CHL. So that would be carry under MPA since the driver would not have a CHL (is unlicensed). It is my understanding that there is no requirement to inform an officer if your armed under MPA.

Sorry, I misread #2. Not every requirement is written into the MPA law. Where is the requirement for a CHL to tell an LEO that they are armed? Why would it be any different for MPA?

sjfcontrol wrote: Regarding #2 -- Do you have some source for this requirement when carrying under MPA?

This topic has been debated on the forum and I don't remember any clear ruling on this. It is my opinion that if one has a CHL one is carrying under the authority of CHL laws and not MPA.

polekitty wrote:Ok, I read most all of the posts and I have some questions I hope will get answered,

1. Do you have to surrender your CHL if you are carrying concealed in your car ( console, glovebox etc.)and not on your person when pulled over?

2. Do you have to inform the LEO if you are carrying concealed in your car when pulled over if you don't have an CHL?

3. Should you surrender your CHL when pulled over if you are not carrying at all?

IANAL, so these are my layman answers. There are certain legal requirements to display your CHL [license]. Display and surrender have different legal meanings. If your CHL is revoked then you have to surrender it.

1. If the LEO asks for ID, yes you have have a requirement to display your CHL.
2. No. If asked, you have to tell that you are carrying a firearm.
3. It is not required, but many suggest that it's a good idea to display your CHL with your DL, even if not carrying.

OldCannon wrote:I'm curious if an LEO on this forum (or attorney) can tell me which law says a Texas police officer can "run the numbers" on your pistol without reasonable suspicion that it's stolen. Just because it's a "Glock" doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

Most laws restrict actions so there would be a law saying that he "couldn't run the numbers", rather a law giving permission. If the LEO legally has possession of your gun, why would he need reasonable suspicion? He just ran your DL and your car registration and insurance.