Texas Law Shield and Open Carry laws

[peeps]

Why are you getting so tuned up about this Mreed? The law was stated correctly by TLS....you're assuming police will be arresting folks without asking for a license first. Will it possibly happen? Sure, but after enough lawsuits and complaints, they will start asking first. That's all assuming you're not doing anything illegal at the time.

You think the cops are just going to shut their ears and go la la la la la while someone is telling them - hey I got a license!??

 

[karlac]

At the very least I think we need a quick opinion request from a legislator, DA or CA to Mr. Paxton, to help set the tone around the meaning of the law and the bounds of behavior w.r.t. controlling state and federal law in Texas.

Been saying that all along, before there is any pending litigation.

 

[XinTX]

Absolutely untrue. There is NO law requiring a badge. Controlling law is PC 46.15 and CCP 2.12.

 

[Renegade]

They may be "technically" arrestable, but the likelihood of it happening are essentially zero.

As is the likelihood of a CHL getting arrested.

 

[vmax]

 

[DexMorgan]

I love this movie clip! It's a classic!

 

[Mreed911]

Why are you getting so tuned up about this Mreed?

Because the larger police departments were at the Capitol jumping up and down to shoot this down and retain the ability to at-will stop someone for legal activity. if that doesn't show intent, I don't know what does. Our legislators had the ability to start off on the right foot and extend appropriate protection to those exercising a right and failed to do so, kowtowing to those politically active officers and organizations who feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

 

[satx78247]

Mreed911,

EXACTLY CORRECT. - ImVho, the legislature should have told "the leaders" of Austin, Dallas, Houston & San Antonio's city governments and all of the various LE unions/groups to "go butt a stump" & simply have "done the right thing" for LIBERTY..

just my OPINION, satx

 

[ShootingTheBull]

Because the larger police departments were at the Capitol jumping up and down to shoot this down and retain the ability to at-will stop someone for legal activity. if that doesn't show intent, I don't know what does. Our legislators had the ability to start off on the right foot and extend appropriate protection to those exercising a right and failed to do so

Which is why people in Huffines', West's, and Dutton's districts should be writing them letters expressing appreciation for their attempts to protect civil liberties under the 4th Amendment. And writing letters to Estes expressing that he was misled, and that attorney opinions are coming out saying that the "settled Constitutional law" that he was relying on is anything but "settled." These letters should be urging them to request the attorney general to draft an opinion letter that offers guidance and instructs law enforcement officials to respect civilians' 4th Amendment rights and the premise of "presumption of innocence."

We could all write letters, but I think it would mean vastly more if it was coming from their constituents.

 

[peeps]

Granted we didn't get the amendment and that sucks, but I'm not getting why you're attacking TLS for posting a video on what is about to be passed as law.

I don't have TLS at the moment either, I'm just curious...

 

[karlac]

Granted we didn't get the amendment and that sucks, but I'm not getting why you're attacking TLS for posting a video on what is about to be passed as law.

I don't have TLS at the moment either, I'm just curious...

I am a member. I hope they did the video as a public service, but as it also doubles as PR and advertisement, and I don't know all that many altruistic law firms ... well, you get the drift.

Why I say that is the fact they (TLS) do NOT defend against anything but USE of a firearm, and unless I'm totally misreading my terms with them, that has nothing do with OC in the slightest.

 

[Mreed911]

Granted we didn't get the amendment and that sucks, but I'm not getting why you're attacking TLS for posting a video on what is about to be passed as law.

Because instead of this being as arguable should it come to pass that someone finds themselves in jeopardy for this, imagine a prosecutor saying "see, even their own insurers told them!" It makes it much more difficult to push back against when "our own" post resources against our best interests.

One could claim that's shady business, too, since TLS DOES NOT cover members in the event of a carry-related arrest - only USE - whereas their competitors DO provide such coverage. It could be said that this is a marketing pitch to say "see, you don't need what our competitors offer anyway, and we're going to help ensure they're less successful should such a case arise."

Distasteful and, IMHO, overly broad and unnecessary. Something I'd expect from Moms Demand Action.

 

[peeps]

Because instead of this being as arguable should it come to pass that someone finds themselves in jeopardy for this, imagine a prosecutor saying "see, even their own insurers told them!" It makes it much more difficult to push back against when "our own" post resources against our best interests.

One could claim that's shady business, too, since TLS DOES NOT cover members in the event of a carry-related arrest - only USE - whereas their competitors DO provide such coverage. It could be said that this is a marketing pitch to say "see, you don't need what our competitors offer anyway, and we're going to help ensure they're less successful should such a case arise."

Distasteful and, IMHO, overly broad and unnecessary. Something I'd expect from Moms Demand Action.

Ahhh now we're getting somewhere. That's an interesting and valid argument. I thought you were arguing their facts, but it seems like you're more focused on their motives. My thoughts - that's capitalism :-S

 

[Mreed911]

Ahhh now we're getting somewhere. That's an interesting and valid argument. I thought you were arguing their facts, but it seems like you're more focused on their motives. My thoughts - that's capitalism :-S

I believe they're at best wrong, or distorting the facts - and at worst intentionally doing so as a marketing initiative at the expense of CHL'ers in Texas.

IOW, I disagree with their facts and merely question their motives.

 

[peeps]

I believe they're at best wrong, or distorting the facts - and at worst intentionally doing so as a marketing initiative at the expense of CHL'ers in Texas.

IOW, I disagree with their facts and merely question their motives.

The reason what he said was valid is because the citizen has to prove themselves as license holders when an officer has reasonable suspicion they are in violation. No where in the video did he suggest that the police wouldn't ask before arresting. If you forget your license, you're most likely getting arrested. Will they dismiss it after the fact? Maybe...maybe it'll be like vehicle insurance. You show proof to judge, it's dismissed. Idk, we'll see.

The argument about police officers isn't solid because it's pretty clear who's an officer (uniform/badge). They are immediately identifiable, unlike citizens.

So what facts in the video are false again?

 

[Mreed911]

The reason what he said was valid is because the citizen has to prove themselves as license holders when an officer has reasonable suspicion they are in violation.

And the problem is, engaging in a legal activity, even one that requires a license, shouldn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, especially when by the exact same statute, the officer is "violating" the same law.

Identifiable isn't the question. Once it becomes legal for any licensed citizen to carry, and with no requirement that the citizen wear visible ID, it's not reasonable to assume that any citizen carrying is doing so illegally. Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to have that proved out for some.

As I've said before, I'll happily provide ID, then after the fact challenge the facts of the stop to determine the specific articulable suspicion used for the stop and go from there. 1:1 confrontations are a no-win when an officer relies on his [perceived and actual] authority to survive and do his/her job.

 

[bwalker]

The reason what he said was valid is because the citizen has to prove themselves as license holders when an officer has reasonable suspicion they are in violation.

So what facts in the video are false again?

Yes, when there is "reasonable suspicion" then ID must be provided. However the TLS video presents as fact something which is not fact: The TLS video stated "a police officer who observes a person openly carrying a handgun has reasonable suspicion". How can someone engaged in a perfectly legal activity give rise to "reasonable suspicion"? We're talking about someone walking down the street (after 1/1/16) minding their own business with their gun properly holstered OWB. Why should the police be allowed to come up to that person and demand ID when no law is being broken? Worse yet is when the cop approaches that person with their gun aimed at them.

 

[karlac]

Yes, when there is "reasonable suspicion" then ID must be provided. However the TLS video presents as fact something which is not fact: The TLS video stated "a police officer who observes a person openly carrying a handgun has reasonable suspicion". How can someone engaged in a perfectly legal activity give rise to "reasonable suspicion"? We're talking about someone walking down the street (after 1/1/16) minding their own business with their gun properly holstered OWB. Why should the police be allowed to come up to that person and demand ID when no law is being broken? Worse yet is when the cop approaches that person with their gun aimed at them.

Can see both sides, don't know the answer.

A stranger presents you with a dozen eggs and asks you to cook an omelet that you must eat.
How do you know there's not a rotten one in the bunch?

You going crack them all straight into the omelet pan while it's cooking? I doubt it.

As much as I hate it, seems like the cops are between a rock/rotten egg and a hard place in this situation.

What's the middle ground?

Seems reasonable that there needs to be one.

 

[Charlie]

How do the cops handle it in the other states with licensed open carry? Or unlicensed open carry?

 

[Big Dipper]

Also in Terry v Ohio the SCOTUS said that it must be more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'". And in YBARRA v. ILLINOIS they also stated that the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.

My understanding of those phrases would not allow for a legal stop of just anyone who is merely OC. There needs to be something else other than a "hunch" that THAT guy who is OC "may" not have a CHL!

If I am wrong and it does, then anyone who prints or inadvertently displays is also subject to a "stop" merely for the sake of verifying that they have a CHL. And lot's of people with holstered smartphones might get harassed for printing too.