TexasCHLforum.com

If you are stopped and the officer exercises his lawful authority to disarm you and you refuse, you will probably be arrested.
I was a LEO for 15 years, prior to CHL, if I was on the streets today, it is unlikely I would disarm most who carry. Most officers I have come in contact with simply hand the CHL back to me with no comment.
I have been disarmed one time by an HISD officer,, but I just wrote that experience off as him not getting to play real police often, so he was going to play the role to the hilt.
Pick your fights carefully, in the case of failing to disarm, you will lose.
Semper Fi.

cb1000rider wrote:

jbarn wrote:
On the cell phone issue, if officers get it in their hands incident or as part of a search and it's unlocked, courts have ruled it fair game.
Since the "safety" of the officer is the reason for disarming you, I can see the natural extension of the court's current latitude until a ruling changes it..

Actually, the display of insurance on the cell phone has one other part to it that states:

(d)The display of an image that includes financial
responsibility information on a wireless communication device
under Subsection (a)(2-a) does not constitute effective consent for
a law enforcement officer, or any other person, to access the
contents of the wireless communication device except to view the
financial responsibility information.

[/quote]

Hmmm.... Maybe I should listen to Mrs DocV when she tells me that carrying three 1911s, a Sig 238, an LC9 and a NAA derringer at the same time might be overdoing it a bit...


Nah... But I hope she is along if I ever have an officer ask to run serial number checks on my gun(s)...

karder wrote:If you feel like an officer has overstepped his authority during an interaction, I would recommend gathering as much information as possible and calling your lawyer. You are going to fair much better fighting it out with an attorney after the fact than fighting it out with the cops at the scene.

- THIS - what should or shouldn't happen when you get stopped doesn't matter at the time they stop you - if you've been wronged, let your lawyer go after them after it happens - defending your rights during a traffic stop ain't gonna work.

If an LEO ran the serial number of my gun after disarming me, I would have to question what gave him reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe my gun was stolen/used in a crime/etc. and thus allowed him to legally run the serial number and "investigate" the status of my gun.

Texas1999 wrote:If an LEO ran the serial number of my gun after disarming me, I would have to question what gave him reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe my gun was stolen/used in a crime/etc. and thus allowed him to legally run the serial number and "investigate" the status of my gun.

You can ask, but he/she doesn't have to discuss that with you. In fact, if he/she wanted to keep things calm and cool, they should probably pass on discussing it with you.

Texas1999 wrote:... I would have to question what gave him reasonable suspicion or probable cause ...

He does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause at all if the serial number is in plain sight. There is a "plain sight" exception to search/seizure law.

This is no different than if he looks in your car window and sees a gallon baggies filled with marijuana. He does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause when the dope is right there in plain sight.

I seriously doubt a CHL holder would be carrying a stolen gun. I know I would feel at ease around a armed CHL holder as do most LEOs that I've asked.

nightmare69 wrote:I seriously doubt a CHL holder would be carrying a stolen gun. I know I would feel at ease around a armed CHL holder as do most LEOs that I've asked.

How do you know? I buy guns from private parties from time to time.. I'm not talking about a back alley, but I do buy from people I don't know otherwise.
It's much easier for me to run a VIN than it is a firearm serial number. All I can do is get the name and info of the person that sold me the firearm.

Buying it and then taking it to law enforcement, if it is stolen, is about like the lady that bought crack and took it to the PD to prove that her neighbor was dealing... It's not going to work out very well.

Why can't we have a simple interface for checking if a firearm is lost/stolen/involved in a crime? What am I missing?

Jumping Frog wrote:

Texas1999 wrote:... I would have to question what gave him reasonable suspicion or probable cause ...

He does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause at all if the serial number is in plain sight. There is a "plain sight" exception to search/seizure law.

This is no different than if he looks in your car window and sees a gallon baggies filled with marijuana. He does not need reasonable suspicion or probable cause when the dope is right there in plain sight.

Yeah, but it's only "in plain sight" because he or she forced you to put it in plain sight. Before the officer started telling you what to do, said gun was concealed and not in plain sight.

Dave2 wrote:Yeah, but it's only "in plain sight" because he or she forced you to put it in plain sight. Before the officer started telling you what to do, said gun was concealed and not in plain sight.

Legally, he had the authority to disarm the CHL if he felt it was necessary for officer safety. If it is handed to him with the serial number in plain sight, then the plain sight exception applies.

That was entirely the point I made earlier in this thread that sliding a paddle holster off the belt and handing over a holstered handgun is interesting, because now the serial number is not in plain sight and the plain sight exception does not apply.

Jumping Frog wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Yeah, but it's only "in plain sight" because he or she forced you to put it in plain sight. Before the officer started telling you what to do, said gun was concealed and not in plain sight.

Legally, he had the authority to disarm the CHL if he felt it was necessary for officer safety. If it is handed to him with the serial number in plain sight, then the plain sight exception applies.

That was entirely the point I made earlier in this thread that sliding a paddle holster off the belt and handing over a holstered handgun is interesting, because now the serial number is not in plain sight and the plain sight exception does not apply.

Just speculating here, I know some have posted here that an officer returned their firearm unloaded. Could the officer claim that removing the weapon from the holster was necessary to unload the weapon (to ensure his safety)? If this claim was deemed valid, then of course the SN would be visible once he removed it from the holster.

Furthering the idea of handing over the gun in a holster, I wonder how it would work if you transferred the gun to a nano vault upon being stopped. If the officer insists on disarming you, you can satisfy that requirement by handing over the entire nano vault because you have then been disarmed.

Handing over a Nanovault would crack me up. The inevitable request for a key would be answered, "No, I don't think so."

Jrma, if an officer wants to assert he needs to unload a holstered handgun for officer safety, either the holster is an unsafe piece of garbage or the officer is acting like a doofus.

Jumping Frog wrote:Jrma, if an officer wants to assert he needs to unload a holstered handgun for officer safety, either the holster is an unsafe piece of garbage or the officer is acting like a doofus.

Wouldn't taking a gun from a CHL during a "routine" traffic stop already prove him to be a doofus?