TexasCHLforum.com

Teamless wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:Yes you do because theres' nothing illegal about selling a rifle.

that is very correct, but how often do they walk up on these types of events?
Once he did, I do not fault him for detaining while investigating. Maybe that is my naivety kicking in, but how many times have we all seen this type of 'detainment" happen - ever watched cops?

Yes, happens too many times. "Consent" searches that arent' really happen all the time to. Don't make it right.

I am assuming this is legally allowed to happen, or they certainly wouldn't show it on ever episode

Sort of. It don't break the law, just the constitution.

Teamless wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:nobody pointed out the whole detention was wrong?

Not sure how it was wrong.
if the officer thought the law was being broken, he can detain you until he figures out what is going on.

In the end, was it wrong, yes, but in the beginning, when he sees 2 people making a gun deal, well, until you have the facts, do you assume it is all legal? not sure

Yes you do because theres' nothing illegal about selling a rifle. No different from pulling over a driver until you can make sure he has a license.

If the officer can't say exactly what he thinks is illegal and what law is being broken and why ("Terry stop" rules), he can't stop anybody.

9mmLover wrote:I wasnt cuffed. Just seperated from the other party and placed in the back of a squad car.

Don't matter if you were in cuffs. Could you leave? Just say to the other guy, "You know what, I'll call you some other time we can get together then" and walk away? Back of a squad car or in cuffs at the police station in a interview room, its all the same.

All these replies, nobody pointed out the whole detention was wrong? I support the 4A just as much as the 2A and 1A. No evidence of anything illegal but both are detained and questioned and ATF is involved (looks like ATF has an illegal database too).

The police in this case need to