TexasCHLforum.com

Texas_Blaze wrote:So if OC passes, it will be just fine for an officer to demand ID just for carry a pistol on the hip.

IMHO OC of a handgun if/when such carry passes will draw much less attention than OC of an AR. Ultimately I don't believe it will be a big deal. At least I haven't heard many such stories out of OK.

Oldgringo wrote:Let me see if I've got this straight: one has to have ID to stroll about but none is needed to vote?

Not quite correct. You don't need ID, but you may be detained until identity is confirmed.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Let me see if I've got this straight: one has to have ID to stroll about but none is needed to vote?

Not quite correct. You don't need ID, but you may be detained until identity is confirmed.

Ain't that about the same thing?

Here's my hope.

Those willing to O.C. won't be in put in a harassed class.

They'll be scrutinized if they deserve to be...

Abraham wrote:Those willing to O.C. won't be in put in a harassed class.

I think that will depend on society more than anything... "Is allowed" laws will clearly help, but if people call the PD about a man with a gun, I'd expect that they'll pretty much always investigate.

It's legal to carry a bolt action rifle, right? It's not as scary as an AR.... It'll still get you detained in lots of places.

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:It is also illegal to lie about your name, date of birth, or home address to a police officer if you are a suspect or witness to a crime. You do not have to answer at all, but you may not lie about it. That is in 38.02 Failure to ID, which it is obvious that HPD does not know very well.

I don't know this very well either. It seems quite fuzzy to me. How am I to know if I'm a suspect or not? They don't have to tell me, right? I know I wasn't involved in a crime, but the officer may not know that and if I'm considered a suspect then I must ID myself, right?

Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this. The only time, in Texas, that you must identify yourself is if you are under arrest. If you are a suspect or a witness, you may refuse to identify yourself but you cannot lie about your identity. Your identity information you must provide is you name, date of birth, and home address. I do not recommend refusing to ID yourself but you can. If you do, as soon as the officer says the magic words "you are under arrest", immediately give him your information. A key point on this is that the only time you must provide your DL is if you are driving or if you are carrying a pistol on or about your person and have a CHL.

I think GC §411.205 should be changed to;

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is
carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer lawfully demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.

Jaguar wrote:I think GC §411.205 should be changed to;

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is
carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer lawfully demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.

The trouble with that is then certain people would want to argue about the legality of any demand. It's not like there is even a consequence anyway so I personally don't think any time should be wasted on worrying about it. The legislature has plenty of things they wont get done as is.

I think u should carry an id for the reason the Leo stated he doesn't know who u are .it seems to me this person is really just harassing the Leo to make a point. Why walk around with a gun and no id . Wrong wrong wrong your not helping your cause.

Kennyg wrote:I think u should carry an id for the reason the Leo stated he doesn't know who u are .it seems to me this person is really just harassing the Leo to make a point. Why walk around with a gun and no id . Wrong wrong wrong your not helping your cause.

No supporting either side, but had he carried his ID like any other normal law abiding citizen, he could've pranced around with his AR-15 and sign, without having to worry about what he went through. How many of us here go anywhere without our wallet on us? I feel naked without it, because I have my Id's, money, cards, insurance information... He'd rather have his AR-15 and not need it, then need it and not have it? What about his wallet? I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. Seems to me like he INTENTIONALLY left his information behind to "express his rights" when confronting the police. No offense, but there are easier ways to show enjoy your rights, the guy seems like he wash pushing buttons.

Still does not excuse the officer in question, as his statements are not acceptable. I don't make threats of something, unless I can and intend to do them if needed. I bet he was bluffing, but there's no telling.

Fight for your rights, but don't go out looking to stir trouble...

Charlies.Contingency wrote:How many of us here go anywhere without our wallet on us? I feel naked without it, because I have my Id's, money, cards, insurance information...

I do, every time I go for a walk. I'll take just my DL and CHL with me if I'm carrying, but everything else typically stays at home.

Dave2 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:How many of us here go anywhere without our wallet on us? I feel naked without it, because I have my Id's, money, cards, insurance information...

I do, every time I go for a walk. I'll take just my DL and CHL with me if I'm carrying, but everything else typically stays at home.

That is all great and well but there is a subset of the population who doesn't carry ID as a countermeasure to law enforcement. Doesn't make it ok for the police to make assumptions based on not having ID but I would think that after seeing so many people who specifically refuse to carry ID because they are criminals, it may be almost impossible not to get a bit, lets just say suspicious.

Abraham wrote:Here's my hope.

Those willing to O.C. won't be in put in a harassed class.

They'll be scrutinized if they deserve to be...

If the authorities care about public safety, it would make a lot more sense to randomly stop drivers to make sure they have a license, financial responsibility, properly inflated tires with sufficient tread, etc.

srothstein wrote:

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote:It is also illegal to lie about your name, date of birth, or home address to a police officer if you are a suspect or witness to a crime. You do not have to answer at all, but you may not lie about it. That is in 38.02 Failure to ID, which it is obvious that HPD does not know very well.

I don't know this very well either. It seems quite fuzzy to me. How am I to know if I'm a suspect or not? They don't have to tell me, right? I know I wasn't involved in a crime, but the officer may not know that and if I'm considered a suspect then I must ID myself, right?

Sorry to take so long getting back to you on this. The only time, in Texas, that you must identify yourself is if you are under arrest. If you are a suspect or a witness, you may refuse to identify yourself but you cannot lie about your identity. Your identity information you must provide is you name, date of birth, and home address. I do not recommend refusing to ID yourself but you can. If you do, as soon as the officer says the magic words "you are under arrest", immediately give him your information. A key point on this is that the only time you must provide your DL is if you are driving or if you are carrying a pistol on or about your person and have a CHL.

Thanks Steve!

I thought a person had to ID themselves if they were being questioned as a suspect and or being detained and not free to go. I don't think I would refuse to ID, but I were just walking about I would be confused by the request. I understand the current requirement to inform an officer during a traffic stop that requests ID since the entire premise for the stop at all is that I'm suspected of violating something in the traffic code. However, I don't understand the requirement to ID when just walking about if I also happen to be carrying my concealed handgun. Is that what you're saying?

C-Dub, you do have it. You must ID when driving and the CHL must ID when walking.

This is the one case where a person with a CHL has a requirement that a non-CHL does not. That is when carrying a weapon, the law requires them to present their CHL AND ID when asked by any peace officer. I believe this was truly necessary to get the law passed but it is a problem, IMO.

If I am walking, and even carrying a pistol as a retired officer, I do not have to present any ID to anyone unless I am driving or under arrest. A CHL does have to ID. Especially with the change to remove the penalty for not showing the CHL, I do not know if this would stand in court or not.

If it helps to understand one other distinction, remember that all traffic stops for driving violations are legally arrests in Texas, based on the Kurtz decision.