DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

[android]

So.. I was giving this some thought and checked the regulations and I think what I came up with is legal.

GCA 1968 specifically prohibit defacement or removal or removal of serial numbers on firearms.

I see no prohibition on temporarily "covering" the serial number. In fact, a lot of pistols have the serial number under the picatinny rail on the bottom of the frame. A flashlight or any accessory would "cover" that serial number and it would no longer be in "plain sight."

Seems to me like some nice black stickers with "Removal Constitutes a Search" printed on them would be legal and prevent the SN from being in "plain sight" when disarmed during a traffic stop, yet does not violate the law.

I don't know if I would do it, but I know a bunch of people here seem to think this DPS policy is over the line.

Any thoughts?

[RX8er]

Do you really want the LEO in the field to make his own determination of what deface or remove means and be arrested and charged with a felony under the GCA?

I can see how this goes:

Ofc: Is that a sticker covering the SN?
You: Yes it is, and if you remove it, you are performing a search
Ofc: How do I know that you have not removed or defaced the SN? You could be trying to hide the fact that you have altered the SN.
You: No I didn't, it is there
Ofc: Prove it to me


I can only see this as adding to the reasonable suspicion and for the LEO to continue to look for PC or now he has PC because he cannot see if there is actually a SN and that it has not been defaced in any way.

[probation_officer]

Ok, I am new here and maybe the answer is obvious but why do you want to cover the serial number on your firearm??

[E.Marquez]

What DPS policy?
We have gone down this road.. and I do not remember any such wide spread policy uncovered.. Nor even a consistency in a single department with that action.

If I missed it.. would you please link me to the discussion that reviled checking a weapon Ser# number that was removed from a disarmed CHL'r at a traffic stop was determined to be policy, common, or consistent in an entire department?

Thanks

[RX8er]

Ok, I am new here and maybe the answer is obvious but why do you want to cover the serial number on your firearm??

The concern is that Texas DPS is running serial number checks during routine traffic stops. They stop you, disarm you and then call in the SN to make sure it is not stolen. Most feel that this is an illegal search as there is no probable cause.

The issue is that no one can provide any proof that DPS has done this on a routine basis or that it is policy. Do a search here and you will find the thread. IMHO, the OP is worried about something that rarely happens. And you place a sticker over it, I can almost bet you that it will be a full search and a lot more inconvenience for you.

[RX8er]

What DPS policy?
We have gone down this road.. and I do not remember any such wide spread policy uncovered.. Nor even a consistency in a single department with that action.

If I missed it.. would you please link me to the discussion that reviled checking a weapon Ser# number that was removed from a disarmed CHL'r at a traffic stop was determined to be policy, common, or consistent in an entire department?

Thanks

I must have missed it too.

[android]

Do you really want the LEO in the field to make his own determination of what deface or remove means and be arrested and charged with a felony under the GCA?

I can see how this goes:

Ofc: Is that a sticker covering the SN?
You: Yes it is, and if you remove it, you are performing a search
Ofc: How do I know that you have not removed or defaced the SN? You could be trying to hide the fact that you have altered the SN.
You: No I didn't, it is there
Ofc: Prove it to me

I can only see this as adding to the reasonable suspicion and for the LEO to continue to look for PC or now he has PC because he cannot see if there is actually a SN and that it has not been defaced in any way.

And he can certainly call it in and get a warrant, or he can peel off the tape without a warrant and perform an illegal search where he would then find that no laws have been broken.

I'm not claiming any of this is convenient, only that I think it has some good legal repercussions. Just like carrying a 6" knife in the state capital.

[Jumping Frog]

Just hand it over still in the holster.

Removing it form the holster now constitutes a "search".

[JALLEN]

Is this a solution for which there is no known problem?

[RX8er]

Is this a solution for which there is no known problem?

IMHO, Yes!!

[RottenApple]

Is this a solution for which there is no known problem?

Sounds about right. There may be some officers who pull these kinds of shenanagins, but they seem to be pretty rare. Most stories I've read are about the "3rd cousin of a friend of a friend of my neighbor's sister-in-law"....

[chasfm11]

Is this a solution for which there is no known problem?

Sounds about right. There may be some officers who pull these kinds of shenanagins, but they seem to be pretty rare. Most stories I've read are about the "3rd cousin of a friend of a friend of my neighbor's sister-in-law"....

If I remember correctly, we have had more than one report of DPS officers running serial number checks on CHL holder guns. Here are my concerns, not necessarily in priority order.

1. Looking at the serial number is a result of disarming a CHL during a routine traffic stop. While it is the right of the officer to do so if he/she feels threatened, I would contrast that "feeling" to another thread where the discussion about MPA indicated that all newly trained officers discussed MPA in training and were told to have the assumption that every car they stopped had legal firearms. I'm concerned about any policy from the DPS that treats CHL holders differently than the general public. This can happen to CHL holders because of our responsibility to pro-actively notify the officer about our guns.

2. Using the right to disarm for safety as a pretense for running the serial number is a slippery slope. I believe that we have lost a number of our freedoms because we did not guard them as jealously as we should have when the erosion first started As has been noted, this is apparently not yet a widespread practice and keeping it from becoming a widespread practice means that we have to challenge it before that happens.

3. A good answer has yet to be provided about what happens with the serial number of a gun which is checked in a DPS stop. This was discussion that it was added to a data base. Until we confirm that is not happening, I remain concerned. To be clear, getting from the right of the officer to disarm to an unwarranted to check to maintenance of a serial number data base is a very long way down the wrong road.. All it would take to clear this up is for the DPS to issue a written statement that a data base does not exist and that officers are not told to check serial numbers of CHL guns.

I freely admit that in the revelations of the past few weeks, my overall concern about the overreach of governmental entities has been heightened. Call it paranoid if you desire. I understand that this is Texas and not D.C. but I have closely followed several of the proposed laws in the 2013 Texas Legislative Session and find the mentality associated with them to be no different than what comes out of Washington. I want to specifically challenge the representative who felt drug testing of all CHL holders was necessary. Likewise, I want to specifically challenge any other proposed law or enacted policy which appears to diminish the stature that CHL holders, through their record of over 15 years, have earned.

I would have less of a concern if there evidence that the DPS officers are questioning every motorist that they stop about firearms, disarming them and running the serial numbers of those guns. As long as the policy specifically applies to only CHL holders, I'm going to have a problem with it.

Is it an official policy? I don't know. If it is not, then there are a few DPS officers who have taken it upon themselves to do it and counseling is in order. If it is a policy, I want it rescinded. I"m not challenging or disputing the right of any LEO to disarm a CHL or anyone else that they need to for their safety. It is what happens afterward that is in question.

[Gunner4640]

Ok, I am new here and maybe the answer is obvious but why do you want to cover the serial number on your firearm??

The concern is that Texas DPS is running serial number checks during routine traffic stops. They stop you, disarm you and then call in the SN to make sure it is not stolen. Most feel that this is an illegal search as there is no probable cause.

The issue is that no one can provide any proof that DPS has done this on a routine basis or that it is policy. Do a search here and you will find the thread. IMHO, the OP is worried about something that rarely happens. And you place a sticker over it, I can almost bet you that it will be a full search and a lot more inconvenience for you.

A friend of mine was stopped by dps a few weeks ago, he handed him his chl and the trooper asked if he was armed, replied yes I am - trooper asked where the gun was , in the consol , trooper said hand it over so he could check if the gun was stolen.

[MeMelYup]

Ok, I am new here and maybe the answer is obvious but why do you want to cover the serial number on your firearm??

The concern is that Texas DPS is running serial number checks during routine traffic stops. They stop you, disarm you and then call in the SN to make sure it is not stolen. Most feel that this is an illegal search as there is no probable cause.

The issue is that no one can provide any proof that DPS has done this on a routine basis or that it is policy. Do a search here and you will find the thread. IMHO, the OP is worried about something that rarely happens. And you place a sticker over it, I can almost bet you that it will be a full search and a lot more inconvenience for you.

A friend of mine was stopped by dps a few weeks ago, he handed him his chl and the trooper asked if he was armed, replied yes I am - trooper asked where the gun was , in the consol , trooper said hand it over so he could check if the gun was stolen.

I would have to ask why he thought I was w thief. Then wright his superior that this officer indicated I was a thief by his actions.

[RottenApple]

A friend of mine was stopped by dps a few weeks ago, he handed him his chl and the trooper asked if he was armed, replied yes I am - trooper asked where the gun was , in the consol , trooper said hand it over so he could check if the gun was stolen.

I'd have refused to "hand it over" (politely, of course) on those grounds and requested he get a supervisor out there (I think they have to call in the request, don't they?). Unless I'm mistaken (which happens more often than not - LOL), LEOs can ONLY disarm you if they believe it necessary for their safety, your safety, or the safety of others. To "check if the gun was stolen" doesn't meet those requirements.

Now, if the supervisor sided with the officer, I'd comply. But I'd get the officer's and supervisr's information and file a formal complaint ASAP.