TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:

VMI77 wrote:We're not talking about a gun locked in a trunk, we're talking about a gun in possession of, or accessible to, a person ....

Which is not against the law.

True, but the rookie cop who spots your gun might not remember that. It's entirely possible that he or she would totally freak out and haul you off to jail. Even if they let you go at the "scene" as soon as their non-rookie partner corrects them, it's still embarrassing, it de-"c"s your cc gun to anyone who's looking, it delays you (which you then have to explain to your boss whom you didn't want to know about your gun), and it's a general pain in the posterior that I, for one, don't need to deal with.

The same "rookie" cop might also think your pepper spray can is too large, or the light bar on your truck is controlled by a "police switch", or your car alarm is a police siren, or your jetski is stolen, or any number of things that aren't illegal. Don't sweat the small (non-illegal) stuff, son -- or don't carry if you think the risk is too large. I don't see any other solutions.

bdickens wrote:

bronco78 wrote:

bdickens wrote:I just can not understand why some people are so worried about what might happen if they get caught not breaking the law.

Not breaking the law according to who.. You? What makes you think you get a vote

First a Law Enforcement officer gets a vote, ..... you will never be asked to vote prior to seeing your lawyer if you think you should have been arrested for what someone else voted you did wrong.

It is naive to not understand this happens every day. most times by honest officers who make a mistake, misjudge, mis understand...,, other times by LEO's or a DA with an agenda, Legality at the arrest site has no bearing on your arrest or trial date... Your vote comes MUCH later in the cycle... after much time and money.

According to the law, that's who. And the law is not up for a vote. It is what it is.

VMI77 wrote:We're not talking about a gun locked in a trunk, we're talking about a gun in possession of, or accessible to, a person ....

Which is not against the law.

Seriously, why do some of you people even get a CHL and start carrying a gun in the first place?

I see you still do not understand..... Thats ok.. it happens. Best of luck.. Hope it all works out for you in your future.

I give up, then. I'll just leave the gun at home from now on, locked in the safe with the ammo seperated and in another location. Better yet, why don't I get rid of it altogether?

sjfcontrol wrote:The same "rookie" cop might also think your pepper spray can is too large, or the light bar on your truck is controlled by a "police switch", or your car alarm is a police siren, or your jetski is stolen, or any number of things that aren't illegal. Don't sweat the small (non-illegal) stuff, son -- or don't carry if you think the risk is too large. I don't see any other solutions.

I was arguing against giving the police x-ray vision. Without it, the rookie cop won't know I'm legally carrying my gun (unless he pulls me over, of course, but then he'll find out when I hand him my CHL along with my DL).

VMI77 wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Z Backscatter Vans as stated in that linked article…have been in use overseas for several years now. I worked with them on our patrol base and joint bases as well as working with the Iraqi units that had them on loan. The type of situation and use, trained crew required to detect a single weapon not something you need to be concerned with. We also use them for CONUS on base security.. scanning commercial trucks as they enter….in a static, dedicated secondary search protocol they work well…

So like that truck in the article shown with a drug stash,, Great use,,, Pulled over or otherwise suspected with PC.. Like a drug dog team brought in to verify a suspicion,, so could a Z Backscatter Van be called in… I’m all for that.

Setting one up on a road intersection, bridge entrance? Not going to see it happen if the leadership listens to the experienced operators.

Seems like something that could be set up at a Border Patrol checkpoint, both legally and practically. I have to pass through a BP checkpoint every time I visit family in the Valley. It's not a problem now, but if they x-ray my car and see a gun, or more than one, I just have a hard time imagining they're going to wave me on.

Here's what should happen in those circumstances. "Sir, we noticed you have firearms in your car. Can you tell us what their purpose is?" "Sure, officer, be glad to. If you don't mind, I'm going to reach for my wallet, which is in my left rear pocket?" "Sure, go ahead." "As you can see, officer (handing him your D/L and CHL), I am a licensed CHL holder. The firearms are for my personal protection." "Thank, you sir, sorry to trouble you. Have a nice day."

sjfcontrol wrote:The same "rookie" cop might also think your pepper spray can is too large, or the light bar on your truck is controlled by a "police switch", or your car alarm is a police siren, or your jetski is stolen, or any number of things that aren't illegal. Don't sweat the small (non-illegal) stuff, son -- or don't carry if you think the risk is too large. I don't see any other solutions.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VzjrIk05YyU[/youtube]

baldeagle wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

bronco78 wrote:Z Backscatter Vans as stated in that linked article…have been in use overseas for several years now. I worked with them on our patrol base and joint bases as well as working with the Iraqi units that had them on loan. The type of situation and use, trained crew required to detect a single weapon not something you need to be concerned with. We also use them for CONUS on base security.. scanning commercial trucks as they enter….in a static, dedicated secondary search protocol they work well…

So like that truck in the article shown with a drug stash,, Great use,,, Pulled over or otherwise suspected with PC.. Like a drug dog team brought in to verify a suspicion,, so could a Z Backscatter Van be called in… I’m all for that.

Setting one up on a road intersection, bridge entrance? Not going to see it happen if the leadership listens to the experienced operators.

Seems like something that could be set up at a Border Patrol checkpoint, both legally and practically. I have to pass through a BP checkpoint every time I visit family in the Valley. It's not a problem now, but if they x-ray my car and see a gun, or more than one, I just have a hard time imagining they're going to wave me on.

Here's what should happen in those circumstances. "Sir, we noticed you have firearms in your car. Can you tell us what their purpose is?" "Sure, officer, be glad to. If you don't mind, I'm going to reach for my wallet, which is in my left rear pocket?" "Sure, go ahead." "As you can see, officer (handing him your D/L and CHL), I am a licensed CHL holder. The firearms are for my personal protection." "Thank, you sir, sorry to trouble you. Have a nice day."

Agreed.

Ameer wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:The same "rookie" cop might also think your pepper spray can is too large, or the light bar on your truck is controlled by a "police switch", or your car alarm is a police siren, or your jetski is stolen, or any number of things that aren't illegal. Don't sweat the small (non-illegal) stuff, son -- or don't carry if you think the risk is too large. I don't see any other solutions.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VzjrIk05YyU[/youtube]

Ummm, oookkk......??

baldeagle wrote:Here's what should happen in those circumstances. "Sir, we noticed you have firearms in your car. Can you tell us what their purpose is?" "Sure, officer, be glad to. If you don't mind, I'm going to reach for my wallet, which is in my left rear pocket?" "Sure, go ahead." "As you can see, officer (handing him your D/L and CHL), I am a licensed CHL holder. The firearms are for my personal protection." "Thank, you sir, sorry to trouble you. Have a nice day."

No, what should happen at places like this is just the opposite. The officer should say something along the lines of "Sir, we noticed you do not have a gun in your car. This is a dangerous area right now due to criminal activity. If you would like to borrow one for the duration of your stay in Texas, please pull over to that shack on the right, show your ID, and pick one up. You can leave it at the airport or the Information center on the highway as you leave the state after your visit."

But I doubt that this will ever happen.

In addition, it still leaves the question of the Constitutionality of the search open. And I just cannot see how the 4th Amendment allows a search of this type without a warrant. I know some people who feel that the security theater of this and things like airport searches are allowed as reasonable searches, but I really just don't see how.

srothstein wrote:In addition, it still leaves the question of the Constitutionality of the search open. And I just cannot see how the 4th Amendment allows a search of this type without a warrant. I know some people who feel that the security theater of this and things like airport searches are allowed as reasonable searches, but I really just don't see how.

I agree that the Constitutional question is in play. I'm not sure it's as clear cut as some might think. I believe that road blocks to catch drunk drivers have been found Constitutional. I suspect these might be seen as similar circumstances and therefore allowed. The open question is the x-ray part of it. That's more intrusive than the drunk driving road blocks, so the courts may find it doesn't pass Constitutional muster because of its intrusive nature.

srothstein wrote: In addition, it still leaves the question of the Constitutionality of the search open. And I just cannot see how the 4th Amendment allows a search of this type without a warrant. I know some people who feel that the security theater of this and things like airport searches are allowed as reasonable searches, but I really just don't see how.

I think that, as usual, Steve has put his finger on what might be the significant legal issue here.

The 4th Amendment does not, of course, prohibit searches and seizures without a warrant, and it only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, what I consider to be the key word in Steve's analysis. With respect to border searches, the 4th has been only lightly applied, if at all, all the way back to our First Congress. Border searches have passed muster well away from the border, and the further away from the border they go, the closer they are looked at by the courts with respect to whether or not they are reasonable.

I would suspect that given the way things have developed since 9/11 the application of the 4th to "national security" searches will approach what has always been OK for border searches. The rub comes when an agency, or perhaps even an individual LEO, "goes too far," and the search and/or seizure becomes "unreasonable." Push the envelope too far, and the courts will slap you on the wrist.

baldeagle wrote:I agree that the Constitutional question is in play. I'm not sure it's as clear cut as some might think. I believe that road blocks to catch drunk drivers have been found Constitutional. I suspect these might be seen as similar circumstances and therefore allowed. The open question is the x-ray part of it. That's more intrusive than the drunk driving road blocks, so the courts may find it doesn't pass Constitutional muster because of its intrusive nature.

While I personally see this as unreasonable, I agree that this is not a rule. But to compare it to other searches and what has been found takes a slighter closer look at those rulings. For example, DWI roadblocks have been found Constitutional if there is a state law allowing them and setting the procedure. Texas does not have such a law (yet, it has been introduced a few times). But the logic of allowing them was that a DWI poses a large immediate threat to public safety, so there is a great state interest in allowing them. Drug search road blocks were not allowed because of the lack of such an immediate threat.

But then SCOTUS recently allowed a roadblock where each person was asked for help identifying a suspect (IIRC the case involved a stop to identify a fatality hit and run and they set the roadblocks up where the accident had occurred on the same day and roughly same time thinking it would catch the witnesses who normally would have been there. The court ruled that the intrusion was so minimal that it was alright.

b322da

You have a valid point on the border searches. Congress and the Courts have always upheld almost any type of customs search as reasonable and legal. The latest question on these included telling people to turn on their laptops and searching them for child porn. I do not know what the ruling was but there was a case last year asking if a person could be forced to tell the police his encryption key at this point in time. There is no question about the search itself, just how much the person has to cooperate and if telling his encryption key is part of the search or testifying against himself. This one is an interesting question for the courts, I think.

And they have always bought into the flexible border concept, allowing searches away from the border. As air travel became normal, this became more important since planes could fly from outside the country all the way to Kansas City or anyplace like that. Also involved in this concept is the mailing of a package that has drugs from outside the country. The police are allowed to track it to its delivery point, no matter where in the US it is, then conduct the search with the actual recipient as part of the border search from customs. But, the interesting question on the Border Patrol checkpoints is that they search cars that have never crossed the border. All of the cases that I know of (not an extensive search) that have questioned these searches were by people caught smuggling things. They had crossed the border and were basically claiming to be in safe territory because they were checked coming across the border. With this technology, there is much more likely to be a case come up where someone argues that they had never crossed the border so the flexible border concept cannot be applied.

And you are correct that the critical point on all of this is what the court things the people will say is reasonable. Remember that the court is supposed to rule on what the consensus of the US feels as it applies to any concept. This was best shown in their last ruling on capital punishment for juveniles. They specifically said that there was a new consensus in the US that this was cruel for juveniles as they banned capital punishment for anyone under 18 when they committed the crime. My personal opinion doesn't agree but I am in the minority. My opnion on unreasonable searches could also be the minority.

srothstein wrote:Remember that the court is supposed to rule on what the consensus of the US feels as it applies to any concept.

No, it's not. If that was they case we wouldn't need a court, we could just hold popular referendums. Constitutional rights aren't up for majority vote or subject to popular "consensus." That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. The courts are specifically intended to NOT make decisions based on popular feelings and consensus. That's part of our system of checks and balances. And anyway, just how is a court to determine the "consensus of the US as it applies to any concept?" Is this determination supposed to be based on what they read in the NYT or saw on CNN or are they supposed to commission a poll? Are people ignorant of the law and the concept under consideration to get an equal voice in this consensus decision?

srothstein wrote:Remember that the court is supposed to rule on what the consensus of the US feels as it applies to any concept.

The court is supposed to rule on what the law says. If anyone thinks the law ought to say something else, they are free to talk to their elected representatives about the matter. If they (the court) reference "popular opinion", or "the general consensus of Americans", or anything other than current law in their decision, then they've gone from "interpreter of the law" to "writer of the law", and that is not their job.