TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

speedsix wrote:...Did he seize and keep it, or just temporarily disarm the guy?...

Did not the judge answer your question in the article quoted, speedsix?

"Given that plaintiff was in personal possession of a loaded weapon in a public park, the court concludes that the temporary seizure of plaintiff's weapon did not violate the Second Amendment," the judge wrote.

Maybe this guy is not a nut. Maybe he is another Heller or McDonald. Stay tuned.

Elmo

...between the OP and both newspaper articles linked, we have more seizes than temporarily seized...by about 2-1...so I'm not quite sure...and the paper may not be either...
...this guy has provoked and started things just to prove he could often...I've followed him on another forum till he was removed...he doesn't represent gunners well...or accurately...that doesn't mean he shouldn't get all his rights...he's been doing this for a loooong time...he and his exploits are all over the net if you care to read it all...you can do the right thing the WRONG way...he's good at it...where's the thumbs down emoticon when you need it....


...this clears it up... http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/0 ... nt-papers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they let him leave with it...

speedsix wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:@Beiruty I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

"...Not exactly. You can be temporarily disarmed, but that's only after having committed some sort of crime and the officer asking for identification, and thus finding out that you're armed in the first place. If you haven't done anything, and you're concealed, there is zero chance of being disarmed..."


...this part of your post is totally in error...an officer can ask you for identification for a great many reasons...and at that point in Tx, you are required to show him your CHL...if, because of any number of reasons, he feels he needs to temporarily disarm you...he has the right to do so...you need not have done ANYTHING wrong...now your statement may or may not be true in Tn, but it's not at all true in Texas...read and learn Govt Code 411.207...it's clearly spelled out there...

I would love to hear a scenario completely unrelated to a crime where an officer would ask for your id. At best, it's because you were the victim of or witness to a crime. Other than that there has to be probable cause to temporarily detain you and ask for id.

Yes, while doing an investigation, filing an accident report, checking who is riding in car (maybe, not sure), taking a statement from witness, or a victim, all of those cases maybe considered lawful contact while discharging the officer duties.

...show me in the law where it says that the officer has to have "probable cause" to temporarily detain me and ask for my ID, please...I need to see that...how about a checkpoint where he stops every car and checks DL and Insurance??? How about a DWI checkpoint? No probable cause, but 411.207 applies in either of those...

speedsix wrote:...show me in the law where it says that the officer has to have "probable cause" to temporarily detain me and ask for my ID, please...I need to see that...how about a checkpoint where he stops every car and checks DL and Insurance??? How about a DWI checkpoint? No probable cause, but 411.207 applies in either of those...

Never in my life have I heard of a DL/Insurance check point. But even if that did happen, you're still being stopped because the officer has reason to believe that you don't have one of them. And if an officer is doing a DWI checkpoint, he has reason to believe that the cars along this road are inhabited by people who can not legally drive a vehicle. In bother cases, the officer would still be stopping you with probable cause. Without probable cause, it's a civil rights violation.

Who cares? Tennessee is Tennessee, Texas is Texas and concealed is concealed.

...absolutely wrong...you need to research the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"... here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...if we're going to excercise our rights under the law, we must first know the law... here's at least a few of those drivers' license/insurance checkpoints you've never seen...really effective, actually... http://www.bing.com/search?q=drivers%27 ... -SearchBox" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

speedsix wrote:...absolutely wrong...you need to research the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"... here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...if we're going to excercise our rights under the law, we must first know the law...

I may have gotten the term incorrect, but from your own source you proved my point.

"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop."

They still have to think you're doing something illegal, which was my original point. If you want to engage in semantics, you're on your own

KingofChaos wrote:
Never in my life have a heard of a DL/Insurance check point.

Really? What time span, your life, are we taliking about?

KingofChaos is the one who wrote he had never seen such a checkpoint, and not speedsix. The way you copied the quote made it look like speedsix was saying that...just trying to keep the air clear.

johnson0317 wrote:KingofChaos is the one who wrote he had never seen such a checkpoint, and not speedsix. The way you copied the quote made it look like speedsix was saying that...just trying to keep the air clear.

Good eye! Thank you.

Oldgringo wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:

speedsix wrote:
Never in my life have a heard of a DL/Insurance check point.

Really? What time span, your life, are we taliking about?

Not very long sir. I'm a young'un

KingofChaos wrote:

speedsix wrote:...absolutely wrong...you need to research the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"... here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ...if we're going to excercise our rights under the law, we must first know the law...

I may have gotten the term incorrect, but from your own source you proved my point.

"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop."

They still have to think you're doing something illegal, which was my original point. If you want to engage in semantics, you're on your own

...they do NOT have to think you're doing something illegal...the DUI checkpoint and the DL/INS checkpoint have nothing to do with reasonable suspicion or probable cause...they're simply regulatory things that they have the authority to do to anyone holding a driver's license or driving a car...same as safety checks on big trucks...they do it just because they can...and they demand ID, and a CHL must notify...and, if they so wish, they may disarm during the time they're conducting business...like the law says in GC411.207...

...this isn't about semantics...it's about knowing what we're talking about when we say "they can't" or "they have to" or "I don't have to..."..so that we stay out of trouble and enjoy our rights...no games here...we're here to learn...and have a little fun along the way...

If an officer ask for your ID, regardless of it's legal or not, I would hope that any reasonable person would simply comply. Anything else would likely result with you in handcuffs. To put all of this back into it's original context, my point was that if open carry is legal, simply open carrying does not constitute a reason to stop someone. In this mans case, the ranger wasn't sure if the draco he was carrying was legally a pistol so he was disarmed until the legality was determined. I see nothing wrong with anything that occurred during this encounter. I was simply saying that open carrying in and of itself isn't a reason to stop someone, providing that open carry is legal and doesn't require a permit(which it does in Tennessee). There are certain conditions which must be met when being temporarily detained; reasonable suspicious(thank you for the term clarification speedsix) or some sort of regulatory action. It can't be random.

And even in things like a DWI checkpoint, it's going to occur at 2:30am on a saturday night, when it's likely that many of the people on the road have been drinking, not at 2pm on Tuesday. No harm no foul speed

KingofChaos,

You have made two mistakes in your logic. The first, and a very minor one, is that drunks are only out at night and that this is when DWI checkpoints take place. There are more of them at night, but some of the very worst DWI's are out during the late morning and early afternoon. I leanred this lesson very early in my career when I apprehended a DWI at an accident scene at 2:00, trying to get to the bank before it closed (back when bankers hours really were just that). He had started drinking screwdrivers while watching the Today show that morning. Many alcoholics do this. As a weird coincidence that follows with this, many police bars open for business at 6 or 7 am, just to catch the night officers who want a drink (or ten) before going home.

The second point that might affect your thinking is just when an officer can stop you and ask for your ID. In Texas, and under US law, an officer can stop you any time and any where you are, for no reason at all. Just as a salesman or poll-taker can stop you to ask you a question, so can a police officer. You do not have to answer him any more than you would the salesman, but he can stop you for that. And if he stops you and asks for permission to search you and you consent, anything he finds is legal evidence.

If a Texas officer stops you for anything other than an arrest or while driving, you do not have to identify yourself. You do have to provide your DL and CHL if you are driving, and think of a car accident as one example of when you must identify with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. And, under Texas law, if you have a CHL, the officer may disarm you for the duration of the contact. In Texas, is you are a witness or suspect in a crime, you do not have to identify but cannot falsely identify. The Supreme Court has also ruled that in states where you are required to identify, that is constitutional. That was a Nevada case where the man was suspected of having been involved in a disturbance.

I agree with you that openly carrying is not a cause for a stop int hose states where it is legal, but I am also very pro-gun. I know of many officers who would stop anyone they saw OC, just to see why they are doing something so unusual. I know officers in Texas who would do it if they saw you walking with a rifle, even though it is legal here. We may disagee with them, but the law so far has allowed it.