TexasCHLforum.com

FORT HOOD -
After several confrontations between soldiers and civilian police, Fort hood has created a new policy.

In an email outlining the policy, Fort Hood says, "There is a growing trend of soldiers assigned to fort hood openly carrying firearms in private business establishments."


{——SNIP——}

The policy reads, "Soldiers are prohibited from refusing to present a driver's license or military identification card to any law enforcement in the exercise of his or her official duties, upon request by the law enforcement officer."

cprems wrote:Doesn't this fly in the face of Federal law?

I was under the impression that one didn't have to identify oneself when not being detained? Am I wrong?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cprems wrote:Doesn't this fly in the face of Federal law?

I was under the impression that one didn't have to identify oneself when not being detained? Am I wrong?

Normally, I'd agree. But this ruling was issued by the commanding general at Fort Hood, and it applies to people who live under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ under his command. I don't know how the UCMJ views this particular scenario compared to how Federal law applies to civilians, but it would seem to me that any active-duty soldier who is stationed at Fort Hood is still under the command authority of this general, even when that soldier is off-base. And if that is true, then it seems to naturally follow that any regulation the general writes governing the behavior of troops under his command would apply as much when those troops are off-base as it would apply when they are on-base.

Maybe someone who knows about the UCMJ will post a clarification here.

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

ghostrider wrote:

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.

cherokeepilot wrote: If I remember my Texas Statutes correctly, any Commissioned Peace Officer can demand production of a Texas DL without PC. Additional, coverage provides that an individual in Texas regardless of military status must produce identification upon request/demand of Texas LEO with or without PC. Failure or refusal to produce identification or properly identified will get you a visit to the local lockup until you are identified. A Texas based individual took the case to SCOTUS. We the individuals lost. Sorry about that but be prepared to id yourself at any time and as I tell my young airmen and officers..........make sure you have paid off all your tickets in Onelight, Texas. Or be prepared to spend time at the local lockup. 73s

PENAL CODE - TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

Sec. 38.02.  FAILURE TO IDENTIFY.  (a)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b)  A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1)  lawfully arrested the person;

(2)  lawfully detained the person;  or

(3)  requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer 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.

ghostrider wrote:

Being in the military circumscribes some of the ordinary Constitutional rights afforded to other citizens.

I think its been that way for a long time, but it seems so wrong that the people expected to protect our freedoms are (almost by definition, it seems) not allowed to exercise all of them.