TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote: Has anyone gone thru and looked at all the other videos of this subject...

When I said pushing a fine line, this is certainly the case...But, I believe that these challenges are justified, you are just going to butt up against some resistance to your resistance, therefore you might be hanging around with these types for longer than you desire, until they tell you you are free to go...

I believe they are more prepared for people like us that know what they are doing is wrong, and that they do not have to give you leave until they just don't want to deal with you any longer...If you make any attempt to drive off or give them any excuse to actually arrest you...Yer done...

The battle is not at these checkpoints...It is at the upper eschelon of their ranks and the government that allows these stops to become "normal"...

Personally, Alex Jones is an idiot...But in a sick and twisted way, he does have a point on this issue...His reasonings to why is what brands him as a fruitloop...

Everyman has to figure out where to draw the line. I don't believe that we are required by law to stop for these guys. We all have different battles to fight. Thank God That some folks such as Travis, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, or George Washington stood up to those who thought citizens were subject to the rulers, and instead demanded that people have a right to expect their governmentto to be of, by, and for the people. These stops seem unreasonable to me. I can't find justification for the Feds to be stopping citizens without just cause, without warrant. It is the Taxpayers that pay for these roads , not the Border Patrol. If the border patrol want to control our Borders I would suggest they actuallty attempt to do it at the borders themselves. That is where the laws they are trying to enforce is actually being broken.Not on our freeways.

Absolutely!!!

nitrogen wrote:Why the H E Double Hockey Sticks is there INS/ICE checkpoints *INSIDE* of the country??

Some Mexicans who don't have passports can get visas to travel into the U.S. a distance of 20 miles from the border. We also have Border Patrol agents in U.S. airpoints that are near the Mexico border.

For U.S. citizens there is a special tourist visa that is only good for border towns in Mexico. You can't go into the interior without a passport. They also have internal check points in Mexico. Even the Mexicans can't pass these check points without proper papers.

WildBill wrote:For U.S. citizens there is a special tourist visa that is only good for border towns in Mexico. You can't go into the interior without a passport. They also have internal check points in Mexico. Even the Mexicans can't pass these check points without proper papers.

Internal passports were also used by the Soviet Union to control people.

will381796 wrote:Do feds even have access to the DPS database that would tell them when they run our DL that we are CHL holders?

Not directly. They will do a fed database check. But the radio operator at Border Patrol's Sector's headquarters could (if asked by the Patrol Agent) interface with DPS for a "wants and warrants" check. This will usually be done if someone is giving them a really hard time or if the interviewee appears to be hinky but has no federal wants or warrants.

nuparadigm wrote:

will381796 wrote:Do feds even have access to the DPS database that would tell them when they run our DL that we are CHL holders?

Not directly. They will do a fed database check. But the radio operator at Border Patrol's Sector's headquarters could (if asked by the Patrol Agent) interface with DPS for a "wants and warrants" check. This will usually be done if someone is giving them a really hard time or if the interviewee appears to be hinky but has no federal wants or warrants.

I've noticed that DPS or a sheriffs deputy tends to hang around these stops.

Yes, it's from the ACLU, but it seems prescient:
Things like this is why I am reluctantly a member.
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I carried through the checkpoints on hwy 90 on either side of Del Rio many times last year. I was never asked for an ID, just the "are you a citizen?" question. If they had asked for an ID I would have shown TDL and CHL. It never really occurred to me to be concerned about it.

Got stopped at INS Checkpoint last Nov. Had been hunting ducks on the coast.
3 out of 4 guys in our vehicle had CHL's and were carrying. Plus, we had gun cases
stacked up in back (in plain site), blind bags etc.
Female agent looked inside, asked if we were all US Citizens, and waved us on through.
No problems what-so-ever.

After watching the video I had to think why would anyone want to put up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint? And then the answer came to me - because he could! It was pointless, cost him time, was disrespectful to a young woman who was just trying to do her job and did nothing for advancing freedom or the right to carry. Why fight such a battle when a simple answer would do. This type of mentality uses the laws they like get around others. It is the type of mentality that pulls the trigger instead of avoiding the fight because the letter of the law said he could. Rember, "The letter of the law killeth but the spirit of law gives life." This guy has his ideas of freedom upside down.

PsychDiver wrote:After watching the video I had to think why would anyone want to put up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint? And then the answer came to me - because he could! It was pointless, cost him time, was disrespectful to a young woman who was just trying to do her job and did nothing for advancing freedom or the right to carry. Why fight such a battle when a simple answer would do. This type of mentality uses the laws they like get around others. It is the type of mentality that pulls the trigger instead of avoiding the fight because the letter of the law said he could. Rember, "The letter of the law killeth but the spirit of law gives life." This guy has his ideas of freedom upside down.

Just like those people who won't let police search their homes without a warrant! What are they hiding?

Where is the sarcasm smilie?

PsychDiver wrote:After watching the video I had to think why would anyone want to put up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint? And then the answer came to me - because he could! It was pointless, cost him time, was disrespectful to a young woman who was just trying to do her job and did nothing for advancing freedom or the right to carry. Why fight such a battle when a simple answer would do. This type of mentality uses the laws they like get around others. It is the type of mentality that pulls the trigger instead of avoiding the fight because the letter of the law said he could. Rember, "The letter of the law killeth but the spirit of law gives life." This guy has his ideas of freedom upside down.

It wasn't pointless. He made the point to 10s of thousands of people that we do not have to cooperate with these types of roadblocks. The Border Patrol knows it as well as we do. They have no right to expect cooperation from the proletariat
One mans patriot is another mans trouble maker.

PsychDiver wrote:After watching the video I had to think why would anyone want to put up such a fuss at an INS checkpoint? And then the answer came to me - because he could! It was pointless, cost him time, was disrespectful to a young woman who was just trying to do her job and did nothing for advancing freedom or the right to carry. Why fight such a battle when a simple answer would do. This type of mentality uses the laws they like get around others. It is the type of mentality that pulls the trigger instead of avoiding the fight because the letter of the law said he could. Rember, "The letter of the law killeth but the spirit of law gives life." This guy has his ideas of freedom upside down.

Easily explainable. You know how you feel about your 2nd amendment rights? That's how I feel about the ENTIRE bill of rights.

IT's not "a big deal" to register your guns with the government. They still let you keep them, right?
It's not "a big deal" to keep your guns locked up, unless you want to defend yourself. Then you should just call 911, right?

It's not "a big deal" to ban assault weapons; we got around that ban pretty effectively, right?

On the contrary, it IS a big deal. If someone wants to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights, even if it's a seemingly simple, harmless thing, we are all taught to react swiftly and harshly against such an encroachment.
We should be just as trained to react against an infringement of any other of the rights that the bill of rights guarantees. Even the ones that "aren't a big deal" because dictatorships always start with good intentions.

I can understand your reaction if it was an issue of rights being violated. But is it? And those who want to compare their actions to those of our forefathers as a justification for total freedom without any accountability are comparing apples to oranges. I think the establishers of the constitution would look at the actions of some who act in the name of patriotism and shudder. As a veteran who served in Iraq during the first gulfwar, I find it offensive to have people claim a right to freedom without any cost for it. With no accountability comes anarchy and chaos. With no laws or rules to govern behavior or investigate possible violations of the laws, we end up with a society that is more corrupt than government. Just take a look at what is happening on the financial front. It was a slackening of the regulations on tracking financial transactions that led to the greed and corruption that caused much of the financial problems we face as a nation. And I bet a lot of you are swearing at the greedy executives who promoted the type of freedom and lack of oversight by government that put us in this position. I can hear some of you ranting about the AIG bonuses. I am not against standing up and speaking up against tyranny or government corruption. But I am also not against any law or regulation that helps us establish a peaceful and orderly society even if it sets some limits on behavior. But one has to be rational about what to stand up for. So I ask, What will be accomplished by putting up such opposition to a INS checkpoint? If it is successful in eliminating them what did we gain? What did we loss? Was it a good trade? I still assert that this effort has little to do with freedom and more to do with exercising a feeling of power and that is scarier than having to stop and give a simple, "I am an American Citizen" answer!

will381796 wrote:Why does everyone qualify their statements with "I am not a lawyer?" Has anyone ever been sued for posting faulty legal information on an internet forum that someone followed because they assumed it's correct?

Yes.

frazzled wrote:

will381796 wrote:Why does everyone qualify their statements with "I am not a lawyer?" Has anyone ever been sued for posting faulty legal information on an internet forum that someone followed because they assumed it's correct?

Yes.

Then please provide a citation of that case.