TexasCHLforum.com

Oeh, I'm not sure where your probable cause comments are coming from. The ofc only needs to articulate reasonable suspicion that contacting an armed person presents a possible (thus reasonable suspicion) threat to his safety. Any cop worth his salt can at least explain that to a jury.

No PC is needed for Terry frisks, or disarming CHL holders. While I disagree with the practice generally, it is absolutely legal as the laws are written and the courts apply them.

gigag04 wrote:. The ofc only needs to articulate reasonable suspicion that contacting an armed person presents a possible (thus reasonable suspicion) threat to his safety. Any cop worth his salt can at least explain that to a jury.

Thanks for the response

Scenario:

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

Can I ask to disarm the officer for MY safety?

The only stop where a LEO wanted to disarm me occured when I was carrying off-body in the center console. When he informed me of his intent, I simply stepped out & locked the doors!

mlawler wrote:Can I ask to disarm the officer for MY safety?

The only stop where a LEO wanted to disarm me occured when I was carrying off-body in the center console. When he informed me of his intent, I simply stepped out & locked the doors!

Well don't stop there! Tell us what happened after you did that.

Ok, who is going to say no when a LEO wants to run a check on your weapon. C'mon we need a test case!

That's does bring up a question for the officer.

"Sir, would you mind if I cleared my weapon for Both our safety before I hand it over as I may be more familiar with it than you are." Thoughts?

Bob, if you like the taste of concrete, give that a try. I don't there's a more sure way to put a LEO at unease than by making ANY indication that you may attempt to handle your weapon during a stop.

TexasCajun wrote:Bob, if you like the taste of concrete, give that a try. I don't there's a more sure way to put a LEO at unease than by making ANY indication that you may attempt to handle your weapon during a stop.

A simple no to my question would suffice!
I would hope that a LEO would not get that brutal to a 66 year old man.

Since you started your post with sarcasm, and since this thread (and other similar threads) it has been stated several times that during a stop, the LEO calls the shots & it's not advisable to set off any alarms; I figured you'd get the tongue-in-cheek tone. You didn't, so here's my revised response sans sarcasm: Keep your hands where the officer can see them, keep your hands away from your weapon, ask the officer how they would like to proceed.

TexasCajun wrote:Since you started your post with sarcasm, and since this thread (and other similar threads) it has been stated several times that during a stop, the LEO calls the shots & it's not advisable to set off any alarms; I figured you'd get the tongue-in-cheek tone. You didn't, so here's my revised response sans sarcasm: Keep your hands where the officer can see them, keep your hands away from your weapon, ask the officer how they would like to proceed.

Sorry, I was a little takin aback by the vision Of asking a question of a officer and getting slammed to the concrete. Guess I didn't recognize the tongue-in-cheek tone. My apologies.
And yes I realize how to conduct myself if I am stopped by a LEO.

All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

sjfcontrol wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

In my opinion we would be doing a disservice to our common bond and inviting the law enforcement community to change its current positive attitude (in general) toward those holding CHLs, if we, regardless of there now not being a penalty, do not comply with the law by inventing a tricky way to avoid complying with the law.

Back in the day, in my service what is proposed here would have been referred to as "sea lawyering." I will go so far as to suggest that to not tell the truth to an LEO by way of one's intentional silence perhaps amounts to lying to him. If so, I think one will find that there is indeed a penalty for doing that.

If the fact that you are armed and have an out-of-state CHL comes to light, and I assure you I am capable of inventing such a scenario, sea-lawyering like suggested here would be an open invitation to reopening the question of the elimination of a penalty for failure to advise, and might likewise be an open invitation for a requirement to similarly advise the LEO of your exercising the MPA, with penalty for failure to do so.

Might a suggestion like this also affect some attitudes toward reciprocity?

As a minimum, as Mr. Allen suggests very politely, "there may be some unpleasantness." It may be rather ironic for a suggestion to made here in a thread started by an issue about LEO "unpleasantness." Has it been suggested that we avoid unpleasantness by inviting unpleasantness?

In short, I do not think this is the kind of advice we old-timers should be giving to newbies. I would think we should be responsible enough to educate them on what the law requires, not on how to get around what the law requires. To tell them that they are unlikely to be caught is, to me, not an acceptable excuse.

Jim

Paranoia is the first sign of a government that has risen above it's laws. You'll see this begin to happen more and more for lesser and lesser reasons until it is the norm. If you wish to know how this ends, open your history books.

bronco78 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:. The ofc only needs to articulate reasonable suspicion that contacting an armed person presents a possible (thus reasonable suspicion) threat to his safety. Any cop worth his salt can at least explain that to a jury.

Thanks for the response

Scenario:

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I am waiting to hear the response to this question.