TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:I would not have identified myself in those circumstances. Of course, I'd never be in those circumstances because I am never unarmed in public so I must then comply with the CHL identification requirements.

Might ask one of our resident LEOs how that would work out in similar circumstances. The officer was investigating a "disturbance" and although you don't have to hand him a DL, you do have to identify yourself... It's pretty trivial to for the officer to come up with a circumstance that justifies compelling ID. The officer does not have to give you reasons or tell you why he's demanding ID, BTW.

It's reasonable to ask the guy for his credentials first, but to refuse to give your name under this circumstance, that's not going to work out so well.

That is not accurate. A person cannot be forced to ID himself unless he has been arrested.

An investigation CANNOT compel identification.

txglock21 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see what the big issue is with showing your ID. Do you all have a problem showing your ID when asked cashing a check, verifying your credit card at store, buying beer (for some younger looking folks)? I have to show ID all the time for various things. If asked by a LEO or even a security guard, I have no problem. It's not like you are giving them your SS card/number. Maybe it's just me. YMMV

My 2nd Amendment right is not the only civil right I care about.

I am also of the generation where every father on the block was a WWII vet, and WWII memories were really fresh in books, movies, TV, and pop culture. Repressive dictatorships in the Cold War are also a very real part of creating my belief system regarding personal rights and liberties. An LEO forcibly requiring identification in a situation where they do not have the legal right to do so brings visions of the Gestapo and "papers please".

I won't submit. I'd rather go through whatever hassle is required, up to and including enduring a false arrest. I have the financial resources to survive whatever is thrown at me and I also have the financial resources to follow through and create difficulties for illegal behavior. In other words, I can be a stubborn, righteous old coot.

dac1842 wrote:A LEO working an extra job is still a LEO. In the instance the OP stated that the manager of a store reported a disturbance, and stated the OP was the one creating a disturbance.
The LEO has every right to ID the possible suspect to investigate the alleged complaint. In this case in doing so, the LEO quickly determined the OP had not committed any crime or disturbance and ceased his investigation and permitted the OP to go about his business.
It sounds to me like the LEO. Did his job and did it well.

I don't agree the LEO has "every right to ID" while investigating a possible criminal offense. TPC 38.02 says he only has the right to demand ID after he makes an arrest.

I would not have identified myself in those circumstances. Of course, I'd never be in those circumstances because I am never unarmed in public so I must then comply with the CHL identification requirements.