Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
The judge and police chief, when they held a Q&A in Houston, said OC'ing is a probable cause to stop you and ask you. So you're saying this is wrong?
Probable cause for what? They cannot assume you are breaking the law or are thinking about breaking the law. After January 1st, I think they'd be asking for trouble.
They said it is probable cause for them to detain you, for questioning. I didn't like the response either, but I wasn't there in person. I saw it on Youtube, the whole meeting is on there.
If you're carrying and I.D. is requested by an LEO, certainly you show both your CHL/LTC, but if all you are doing is having a conversation (no matter the subject) with an LEO and he doesn't "request" I.D. you aren't compelled to show it.
So, per the above, you aren't 'compelled' to show anything.
Let's play devils advocate. You see a guy with swastikas tattooed on his forehead walking around with an open carry 45 in a holster on his hip and gang colors on his vest in a bad area of town. Are you concerned? Sure. Does he have a CHL or whatever it is now called, who knows. Is this someone a LEO might question-sure. In this case a CHL in a plastic "badge" might prevent a stop. Kind of like the license holders hunters have to wear on their vests in some states. Even my local gun range REQUIRES me to wear my membership card in full view either in a badge holder or a neck strap.
This is a LEO dilemma I am sure because it requires profiling. If the guy looks like an honest upstanding gent the LEO won't do anything but if the guy looks like a crook what happens?? This will be a tough call for the LEO and I don't envy their job.
Incidentally, I have never worn my gun club membership on a badge (but it is in my wallet) and I am not proposing that one wear a CHL badge but this has to be a tough problem if you are a LEO.
Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
I think you've got that backwards. The (Dutton?) amendment which was killed would have forbidden LEO from asking just because you were OC'ing.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
I think you've got that backwards. The (Dutton?) amendment which was killed would have forbidden LEO from asking just because you were OC'ing.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. It's the effect of the amendment that had me concerned. By having a provision specific to OC and probable cause, that IMO kind of sets you up for a LEO finding some fragment of cause to check you out. We didn't need a specific provision because we are already protected from this.
You don't wear your DL around your neck when you drive so don't wear your CHL on your belt either.
As far as badges, don't be that guy. I saw a character when at the river walk in San Antonio wearing his private investigator badge on his belt while drinking a beer at a bar. I just shake my head and giggle.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.
Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
The judge and police chief, when they held a Q&A in Houston, said OC'ing is a probable cause to stop you and ask you. So you're saying this is wrong?
Probable cause for what? They cannot assume you are breaking the law or are thinking about breaking the law. After January 1st, I think they'd be asking for trouble.
There was a young man that repeatedly questioned the judge and police chief and they repeatedly responded that if you are open carrying in Houston, you will be asked to show your ID and LTC. They implied that by applying for the LTC you consented. They responded that asking for ID and CHL was the only way an LEO would know if you could legally OC. The finally told the young man to move on. The judge and police chief were very clear about their intent.
LikWid wrote:Ok, maybe I used the term BADGE, loosely, especially for this forum. Not speaking on a badge, like police officers. More of an ID holder, clear plastic, that shows your CHL. IDK, I don't see it as a HORRIBLE idea, have your CHL visible so officers know you have one, IF you're open carrying of course.
I think having your name, home address, LTC number and TXDL number hanging out in plain public view is indeed a HORRIBLE idea.
Yes, when given more thought I give it, it is a bad idea. Not sure why someone would be at a gun show, trying to say it was mandatory in order to open carry.
For when people like your cousin to Come along and maybe purchase one. People are always trying to separate others from their money.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
FCH wrote:
There was a young man that repeatedly questioned the judge and police chief and they repeatedly responded that if you are open carrying in Houston, you will be asked to show your ID and LTC. They implied that by applying for the LTC you consented. They responded that asking for ID and CHL was the only way an LEO would know if you could legally OC. The finally told the young man to move on. The judge and police chief were very clear about their intent.
How is this different than a traffic stop to "know you can legally" drive?
Actually, many years ago, while I was here visiting my parents, I was stopped at a roadblock not far from their house. The city cops were checking driver's licenses, stopping everyone just to see if they had licenses. I was driving a car with Texas plates and had a California drivers license, very suspicious. That drew all sorts of interest until, lucky for me, one of the officers recognized me as he had been in one of my sister's HS class. Otherwise, there would have had to be an investigation!
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
JALLEN wrote:How is this different than a traffic stop to "know you can legally" drive?
Reminds me of when my daughter was stopped because she was so short she was looking through the steering wheel of a '72 Torino.
The judge and police chief explained that if they receive calls about some OCing, LEOs will have to investigate including asking for ID and LTC. They did say they would not expect to make an arrest unless their investigation turned up the appearance that the OCer was trying to cause alarm. I can understand that kind of response.
FCH wrote:
There was a young man that repeatedly questioned the judge and police chief and they repeatedly responded that if you are open carrying in Houston, you will be asked to show your ID and LTC. They implied that by applying for the LTC you consented. They responded that asking for ID and CHL was the only way an LEO would know if you could legally OC. The finally told the young man to move on. The judge and police chief were very clear about their intent.
How is this different than a traffic stop to "know you can legally" drive?
Actually, many years ago, while I was here visiting my parents, I was stopped at a roadblock not far from their house. The city cops were checking driver's licenses, stopping everyone just to see if they had licenses. I was driving a car with Texas plates and had a California drivers license, very suspicious. That drew all sorts of interest until, lucky for me, one of the officers recognized me as he had been in one of my sister's HS class. Otherwise, there would have had to be an investigation!
So for a traffic stop, such as speeding, or some violation, you absolutely have to provide your DL when asked. However, for the road blocks or DUI checks or whatever their disguised as, you do not have to provide your DL or anything for a random stop.
I'm not the type to cause a scene, but I do have a problem with these types of random stops.
Go to the unofficial national archives (youtube) and there's some very entertaining videos of people exercising their rights in such situations.
FCH wrote:
There was a young man that repeatedly questioned the judge and police chief and they repeatedly responded that if you are open carrying in Houston, you will be asked to show your ID and LTC. They implied that by applying for the LTC you consented. They responded that asking for ID and CHL was the only way an LEO would know if you could legally OC. The finally told the young man to move on. The judge and police chief were very clear about their intent.
How is this different than a traffic stop to "know you can legally" drive?
Actually, many years ago, while I was here visiting my parents, I was stopped at a roadblock not far from their house. The city cops were checking driver's licenses, stopping everyone just to see if they had licenses. I was driving a car with Texas plates and had a California drivers license, very suspicious. That drew all sorts of interest until, lucky for me, one of the officers recognized me as he had been in one of my sister's HS class. Otherwise, there would have had to be an investigation!
So for a traffic stop, such as speeding, or some violation, you absolutely have to provide your DL when asked. However, for the road blocks or DUI checks or whatever their disguised as, you do not have to provide your DL or anything for a random stop.
I'm not the type to cause a scene, but I do have a problem with these types of random stops.
Go to the unofficial national archives (youtube) and there's some very entertaining videos of people exercising their rights in such situations.
I've not seen any other situations like this since. Of course, in my dad's car, I did not know where the paperwork was, so that was awkward, and suspicious.
An old friend, a lawyer I had worked for during high school, told me that even into the '60's and '70's, rural Texans did not pay much attention to the government, and as many as a third of the adult population had never bothered to get a driver's license, so they were checking.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
Yet, since the birth of CHL, there have been some who feel compelled to call themselves out with badges or ID lanyards.
I'll never forget a customer who was one of the first to get his CHL. He was a professional, always dressed business casual or sometimes coat and tie. He showed me his CHL the day it arrived. Cool. Then a few weeks later, he showed me a small "Texas CHL Holder" badge with leather fob - very nicely done - hanging from his belt. Not cool. I asked him if he was worried about being mistaken for a detective or something, he wasn't. I would be. Not my approach at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that got approved in the bill? Meaning, they can ask you for ID just because your OC. If I'm not mistaken, that was the main turning point that actually got this thing approved.
Texsquatch wrote:I watched most of the sessions when our legislators debated the open carry amendments. I was more than pleased that the good guys were able to kill the amendment that would enable police to ask for ID from anyone OC'ing without any other probable cause.
Yet, since the birth of CHL, there have been some who feel compelled to call themselves out with badges or ID lanyards.
I'll never forget a customer who was one of the first to get his CHL. He was a professional, always dressed business casual or sometimes coat and tie. He showed me his CHL the day it arrived. Cool. Then a few weeks later, he showed me a small "Texas CHL Holder" badge with leather fob - very nicely done - hanging from his belt. Not cool. I asked him if he was worried about being mistaken for a detective or something, he wasn't. I would be. Not my approach at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that got approved in the bill? Meaning, they can ask you for ID just because your OC. If I'm not mistaken, that was the main turning point that actually got this thing approved.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
Reminds me of when my daughter was stopped because she was so short she was looking through the steering wheel of a '72 Torino.