TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:

USA1 wrote:

joe817 wrote:

E10 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I've also heard that a LEO can tell just by looking at you if you're carrying or not.

Yeah, it's that steely-eyed look we all get when we're packin'.

Ruh roh! I got that same look before I got the CHL and started carrying!

You must fit the stereotype .

I can't help it if I'm the ultimate "beefcake" image women swoon over and most males become immediately jealous over. THAT'S the look I get. (or I'd like to think so!)

OK Fabio , now I get .

OK Fabio , now I get .

Hey! How did you know he went through 7 plastic surgeries to pattern himself after me?

C-dub wrote:I've also heard that a LEO can tell just by looking at you if you're carrying or not.

It takes a lot of experience for a law enforcement officer to be able to tell if you are armed simply by looking at you. It also has a lot to do with how you are carrying.

I patrolled with a guy that was great at this but even he was not 100% on.

The trick is to be able to spot the small signs and little things that a person may not even be aware they are doing, that will tip an officer off.
He taught me a lot and I became fairly good at it myself but I liked working with him because his ability kept us from possible harm many times.

jbirds1210 wrote:Consent is about the only reason I can think of that someone could search and enter without PC,or as Steve mentioned, exigent circumstance. Consent is a powerful force.

Granting permission has nothing to do with a CHL.

Jason

exactly.

USA1 wrote:

joe817 wrote:

E10 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I've also heard that a LEO can tell just by looking at you if you're carrying or not.

Yeah, it's that steely-eyed look we all get when we're packin'.

Ruh roh! I got that same look before I got the CHL and started carrying!

You must fit the stereotype .

Yup - I wore Hawiian shirts before I started packin".

VoiceofReason wrote:

C-dub wrote:I've also heard that a LEO can tell just by looking at you if you're carrying or not.

It takes a lot of experience for a law enforcement officer to be able to tell if you are armed simply by looking at you. It also has a lot to do with how you are carrying.

I patrolled with a guy that was great at this but even he was not 100% on.

The trick is to be able to spot the small signs and little things that a person may not even be aware they are doing, that will tip an officer off.
He taught me a lot and I became fairly good at it myself but I liked working with him because his ability kept us from possible harm many times.

You wouldn't want to share some of his secrets would you?

if a LEO can tell if your carrying , what about a sagitarius or a virgo ? just kiddin'

longhornmike wrote:if a LEO can tell if your carrying , what about a sagitarius or a virgo ? just kiddin'

Ohhhhhhhh, that was bad!

VoiceofReason wrote:

C-dub wrote:I've also heard that a LEO can tell just by looking at you if you're carrying or not.

It takes a lot of experience for a law enforcement officer to be able to tell if you are armed simply by looking at you. It also has a lot to do with how you are carrying.

I patrolled with a guy that was great at this but even he was not 100% on.

The trick is to be able to spot the small signs and little things that a person may not even be aware they are doing, that will tip an officer off.
He taught me a lot and I became fairly good at it myself but I liked working with him because his ability kept us from possible harm many times.

I used to be very good friends with many in Pasadena, upgraded/built several shotguns and other guns for them, along with Les Early (RIP) and occaisionally I would wear between 15 and 25 handguns concealed and see how many they could find. Most walked away with a very increased awareness

I think most of you knew I was joking.

How in the world does one hide 15+ handguns on your person? Wouldn't anyone give up looking after 6-8? What were there calibers?

I don't mean to derail the question, but as the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor or "No" I would like to shift focus a bit.

If you were say, the holder of a class III weapon or license, does some of the language as part of that process entitle law enforcement increased authority to perform searches of your residence/place of business?

During my CHL class, one of the students asked a similar question and our instructor gave the impression that certain liberties to LE were granted but I can't remember exactly.

Source: http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I found this with a google search...it is interesting reading.

Jason


NFA WEAPONS AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT

As to surrendering your 4th amendment (search and seizure)
rights, this is definitely true when one gets a Federal Firearms
License. The law allows the ATF to inspect your records and
inventory once every 12 months without any cause, and at any
point during the course of a bona fide criminal investigation (18
USC sec. 923(g)). They may inspect without warning during
business hours. The only modification of the above pertains to
the C&R FFL (type 03) where ATF must schedule the inspection,
(C&R FFL holders do not have business hours) and they must have
the inspection at their office nearest the C&R FFL holders
premises, if the holder so requests. ATF may look around the
licensed premises for other weapons not on your records. This
means they take the position that if your licensed premises are
your home they may search it, as part of the annual compliance
inspection. The constitutionality of the warrantless
"administrative search" of licensees provided for in the Gun
Control Act has been upheld by the US Supreme Court, see U.S. v.
Biswell, 406 U.S. 311 (1972). Biswell was partially overturned
by Congress by 1986 changes to the requirements for a warrant
under the GCA, but the administrative search provisions remain.<SNIP>

srothstein wrote:

FL450 wrote:A friend said he has postponed his CHL because he heard that a LEO can search your house with probable cause, without obtaining a warrant if you have a CHL.

Yes, a police officer can search your home if he has probable cause and no warrant. The CHL has nothing to do with it though. A police officer can search any palce with probable cause and no search warrant if he can justify it.

The courts have always upheld searches without a warrant if there is some exigent circumstance (read as emergency) where thee is no time to get a warrant. The primary justification is that something will happen to the evidence if they take the time to get the warrant.

To think about this, remember the search of OJ's home after the murder. The officer did not have a warrant, but found blood on the car handle parked by the house. He searched by pointing out that there could be another victim inside that needed medical attention, thus stopping him from taking the time to get the warrant.

It is clearly not a reason to put off getting a CHL.

I agree but the search is still limited in scope.

jbirds1210 wrote: ATF may look around the
licensed premises for other weapons not on your records.

it's my understanding that an FFL can have a private collection off the books.
For example, if I got a license today, and have several dozen firearms in my private collection, nothing need be done or recorded on those.

VoiceofReason wrote:I agree but the search is still limited in scope.