• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"Show me your carry papers!"

ICBM

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2014
Messages
77
Location
McCordsville, IN
sorry, i am already on OCOD forum record to have volunteered back in Nov to engage in a gathering of like minded Texas OC'g citizens but was told naw'll...

so guess you will have to take my place, better yet...ya'll do the trio concept...you, stealthy and get ICBM down from the Hoosier state to step up to the challenge.

ipse

ps don't forget to set up a gofund me website...

Wish I could, honestly. Wouldn't need a "gofundmybrokeass" to do it though ;)

That's for the people of Texas to fight. Never had trouble myself in the North. But if that scenario were to happen, then I would of course fight it as described. We also have a statute that defines a hefty civil recovery from officers who don't follow carry laws (X3 times court costs), so they have much more reason to follow the law.

Never be afraid to be the first into the breach!
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
i'm sorry, but ya'll have been shown from multiple sources in other threads the nice DPS peace officers can and will stop citizens per .205.

you can hop on one leg hoping the nice peace officer won't 'detain' your silly OC'g butts and if you cop any type of BS attitude...you will enjoy the ride...

OP, stealth, Ged, ad nauseam...step out and be the live guinea pig test case...but ya'll know deep in your hearts ya'll are hosed if the nice peace officer wishes to screw with you as you contritely surrender your concealed permit saying 'here ya go SIR'!

give the bloody subject a break would ya, cuz any way you may wish upon a star it isn't so, rehash it, regurgitate the material, or turn the subject inside out...bottom line, as nightmare stated: quote: A cop can bust you and take you to jail for any thing, reason or not, that he wishes. unquote.

ipse

I specifically said I didn't want to rehash... Not sure why you all of a sudden felt the need, given you were able to retrain yourself with your first post.

I see you are still hanging onto government code 411.205, despite having been a participant in the other thread. Let's rehash, since you have apparently decided you need to. The controversy is not over GC 411.205, solus. Not even the lawyers are really bickering about 411.205. The controversy is over the relationship between and proper application of penal code 46.02 and 46.15.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Above from KWTX.com

So, in your new state law, the legislator has decided that carrying a gun openly waives your 4th Amendment rights, which it does not. I hope all you guys refuse to provide your permits to police who stop you unjustifiably. As an Indiana resident, I've brought up this issue on the IN board, and have even found relevant case law that would back my argument.

There is no state law that would require you to present ID and/or permit JUST for carrying a weapon. They can not perform an "arrest" to investigate if you've committed a crime without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Some think an "arrest" only occurs when they put cuffs on you. This is not correct. Remember; an arrest is when you are stopped by police either physically (even a simple touch), an act where a person feels like they are not allow to leave, like an officer activating his emergency lights and pulling you over or next to you on the sidewalk, or any other act that reasonably makes you feel detained or not free to leave.

Once again, I hope if you're stopped that you all refuse to ID yourselves, unless they cite a ordinance or statute you have violated.

"Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."

I specifically said I didn't want to rehash... Not sure why you all of a sudden felt the need, given you were able to retrain yourself with your first post.

I see you are still hanging onto government code 411.205, despite having been a participant in the other thread. Let's rehash, since you have apparently decided you need to. The controversy is not over GC 411.205, solus. Not even the lawyers are really bickering about 411.205. The controversy is over the relationship between and proper application of penal code 46.02 and 46.15.

sorry stealthy...as you can see, the OP's original post was about quote: no state law, don't have to show your permit, citing an ordinance or statute you have violated unquote

vainly tried to redirect the OP to the texas threads, nope...

now twenty three posts later, you have diverged this to 'the proper application of a penal code'.

shaking my head in wonder...

ipse

added...do you disagree with nightmare's assessment?
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I was speaking with a law student the other day and (according to him/his professors) there are (in general) two ways laws can be written. I'll use semi-ludicrous examples to make the point....
1) It is illegal to eat a ham sandwich on Sunday without obtaining a tax stamp.
2) Anyone eating a ham sandwich on Sunday must have a valid tax stamp.

Example one provides RAS simply by the mere observation of seeing a ham sandwich being eaten (It is illegal to....) whereas in the second one must suspect that a tax stamp is somehow not present in order to have RAS.

If one looks at most (can't say all) traffic laws, the requirement is that all drivers must have a valid license not that driving on the roads is illegal without having a license.

Neither of those seem to be analogous to our scenario here in Texas, in my opinion

Our scenario is more like:

Section 1: A person commits an offense if they eat a ham sandwich
Section 2: Section 1 doesn't apply if it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday

I'd love to know what they say about that one.

BTW, I believe our DL statute basically uses language generally along the lines of "A person may not drive unless they have a license" which seems to have a negative tone more analogous to the first example than the second. But I could be wrong.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
1) It is illegal to eat a ham sandwich on Sunday without obtaining a tax stamp.
2) Anyone eating a ham sandwich on Sunday must have a valid tax stamp.
Our scenario is more like:

Section 1: A person commits an offense if they eat a ham sandwich
Section 2: Section 1 doesn't apply if it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday

BTW, I believe our DL statute basically uses language generally along the lines of "A person may not drive unless they have a license" which seems to have a negative tone more analogous to the first example than the second. But I could be wrong.

Section 1 would be the same as my example 1); RAS would be established merely by seeing something that the law prohibited.
Section 2 would be your defense to being cited for a violation of Section 1 (Hopefully on the side of the road instead of in a court room.)

It's my purely layman's, uneducated and untaught position that the TX law (being poorly written) could be used to provide RAS of criminal conduct merely by discovery of an openly carried handgun in Texas. That's not to say it should be, nor has to be, but only that it can be construed that way. Work with your representatives and get it corrected in the next legislative session or so and it'll go away.

If the TX driver's license law is as you say, I'd think it would be more analogous to example 2), or at least that's the way I meant to express the example. It would not establish RAS merely to see someone driving a car on public roads, one would have to suspect they did not have a license by displaying such behavior as disobedience to some traffic regulation.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Fair enough. I didn't read through the thread enough. But I think this specific question needs to be the priority of the thread and not just a spin-off/side topic.

Can police stop you to check your permit?

I resoundingly say, NO.

I agree, they can not do this LEGALLY, even though MANY have done so ILLEGALLY but without effective consequence!
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Section 1 would be the same as my example 1); RAS would be established merely by seeing something that the law prohibited.
Section 2 would be your defense to being cited for a violation of Section 1 (Hopefully on the side of the road instead of in a court room.)

It's my purely layman's, uneducated and untaught position that the TX law (being poorly written) could be used to provide RAS of criminal conduct merely by discovery of an openly carried handgun in Texas. That's not to say it should be, nor has to be, but only that it can be construed that way. Work with your representatives and get it corrected in the next legislative session or so and it'll go away.

If the TX driver's license law is as you say, I'd think it would be more analogous to example 2), or at least that's the way I meant to express the example. It would not establish RAS merely to see someone driving a car on public roads, one would have to suspect they did not have a license by displaying such behavior as disobedience to some traffic regulation.

A couple problems I have are that other parts of the law which are worded and structured similarly have been interpreted differently, and this interpretation is contrary to the documented intent of the legislature.

I think I know what you meant, but I don't think the wordings in your examples are nearly as analogous to the relevant sections in Texas code as you think. The DL statute basically says it's illegal to drive without a license. "You may not." It doesn't just say a drivers license is required, as in, making a requirement that you do something in order to do another thing. It doesn't say "Get Y license to do X." It doesn't simply say "driving requires a license." Rather it is prohibitive, saying you can't do something, i.e. doing X is illegal. Driving is illegal (unless you have a license.) IMO this is definitely more analogous to your first example. I'm not really trying to argue, just, you know, call into question the applicability of what your lawyer buddies said to our scenario. I question everything. ;)

Really the only difference I can see between the handgun prohibition and the driving without a license prohibition is that in one the part about "unless you have a license" is broken out into a separate sentence. Only a damned lawyer could interpret such basic, seemingly unimportant structuring difference to have such an enormous effect.

I understand I'm not a lawyer, so there are ways of interpreting things that I'm not familiar with. To be frank, I'm not super interested in abandoning common sense and sound reason in order to think like a lawyer, not interested in learning to use contrived reasoning to argue against other contrived reasoning instead of just using real reasoning. My opinions won't make for court-ready arguments, I'm ok with that, at least I'm true. *shrug*

Edit to add:
Basically, like this...
License required code says it's illegal to drive unless you have a license. This is like your first example.
No handguns code says it's illegal to carry a handgun, also like your first example, then in another sentence say unless you have a license, just like with driving.
The primary difference is that with the no handguns code, the "unless" part is broken out into another structure with a lot more "unless"es than just if you have a license - there is also "unless you're a cop," "unless you're traveling," "unless it's a club and you're a dog catcher," etc.

Edit2: To be thorough, with the no handguns code, there are also a couple of "unless"es right underneath the prohibiting sentence. Also in the DL part it references additional "unless"es in another section as well. I don't think this changes things, just wanted to head off any ******** wanting to nitpick. It's something I'd to do me if I were someone else.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
If you could post the code section you think is relevant it would help, it's hard to discuss things without a common frame of reference.

Only a damned lawyer could interpret such basic, seemingly unimportant structuring difference to have such an enormous effect.
That's where lawyers make all their money, in the tiny differences between what was said/written and what was meant. Look at the controversy about the Second Amendment and 'the comma'. https://www.google.com/search?q=second+ammendment+comma&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=second+amendment+comma
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
That's where lawyers make all their money, in the tiny differences between what was said/written and what was meant. Look at the controversy about the Second Amendment and 'the comma'. https://www.google.com/search?q=second+ammendment+comma&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=second+amendment+comma

Teehee, I'll just go ahead and hang onto my sanity and NOT read that. LOL

(again, not looking to argue, but just for frame of reference)
Pretty much the only codes I'm looking at are these:
Penal Code 46.02 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.02
Penal Code 46.15 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.15
Transportation Code 521.021 http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.521.htm#521.021

(I'm not sure Transportation Code 521.021 is the only part that deals with requiring a license to drive. It's all I could find on the matter in my brief searching.)

(Fun bonus while you're in there, look at 521.025(B) - "A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section." I have seen police officers warn newbie officers to NEVER stop someone based on this part of the code, implying that they will almost surely end up being sued, and lose. No experience here personally, though.)
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS
I'm liking the 'after Jan 2016' part of this. The way it's written is mere discovery of an openly carried handgun doesn't seem to provide RAS of crime because sub-paragraph (1) is an integral part of (a-1) and there is no way to consider (a-1) without (1). ((Although we all know that courts can interpret anything any way they wish :rolleyes:)

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY
Weird, almost word for word our (GA's) 16-11-130, except we also exempt (3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States; (almost everyone in uniform, even State Defense forces who dont' carry firearms in uniform).

Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED
Exactly what I'd hoped to see - an officer merely observing someone driving on public roads would have no RAS of illegality based solely upon seeing a driver.

... and for extra fun -
521.025(B) GA has almost exactly the same 40-5-29 I can see why officers are advised not to stop anyone based purely upon the code; there is no basis for any RAS (required for detainment) contained within it.




(Although it should be obvious, these are merely my own personal views and not in any way that of any court or legally binding, so... whatever, right? :cool:)
 
Last edited:

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
499
Location
Bandera, TX
sorry stealthy...as you can see, the OP's original post was about quote: no state law, don't have to show your permit, citing an ordinance or statute you have violated unquote

vainly tried to redirect the OP to the texas threads, nope...

now twenty three posts later, you have diverged this to 'the proper application of a penal code'.

shaking my head in wonder...

ipse

added...do you disagree with nightmare's assessment?

Although you, me, and stealthy probably didn't want to rehash the issue, the OP did have a valid point about it meriting its own thread since it's such a "popular" topic at the moment. It may also serve to help any lurkers or newcomers find this info more readily from now on by having its own thread.

sorry, i am already on OCOD forum record to have volunteered back in Nov to engage in a gathering of like minded Texas OC'g citizens but was told naw'll...

so guess you will have to take my place, better yet...ya'll do the trio concept...you, stealthy and get ICBM down from the Hoosier state to step up to the challenge.

ipse

ps don't forget to set up a gofund me website...

I don't actually recall the offer (perhaps I missed it) but I'm sure everyone here in TX appreciated it. Likewise, I would return the gesture and offer to help in any NC activities but, alas, the last time I was there I got ripped off to the tune of $3.2M on a business deal.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS
I'm liking the 'after Jan 2016' part of this. The way it's written is mere discovery of an openly carried handgun doesn't seem to provide RAS of crime because sub-paragraph (1) is an integral part of (a-1) and there is no way to consider (a-1) without (1). ((Although we all know that courts can interpret anything any way they wish :rolleyes:)
Unfortunately that part only applies in a vehicle or boat. The general prohibition wasn't modified. :(

Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED
Exactly what I'd hoped to see - an officer merely observing someone driving on public roads would have no RAS of illegality based solely upon seeing a driver.

I'm still not sure how this is what you'd hoped to see, IMO it is clearly analogous to your first example.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snip...

I don't actually recall the offer (perhaps I missed it) but I'm sure everyone here in TX appreciated it. Likewise, I would return the gesture and offer to help in any NC activities but, alas, the last time I was there I got ripped off to the tune of $3.2M on a business deal.

got to watch those darn displaced carpetbaggers...

thanks for the offer, (thanks for the segue way...) but we have OC w/o a privilege card...now if we want to meet in SC, those citizens are in need of our assistance...

ipse
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Fallschirmjäger said:
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED
Exactly what I'd hoped to see - an officer merely observing someone driving on public roads would have no RAS of illegality based solely upon seeing a driver.
stealthyeliminator said:
I'm still not sure how this is what you'd hoped to see, IMO it is clearly analogous to your first example.

Allow me to see if I can explain better then...

521.021 A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
vs.
My example 1) It is illegal to eat a ham sandwich on Sunday without obtaining a tax stamp.

In 521.021 is does not say it's illegal to drive (which could provide RAS by merely seeing someone drive) and then provides an exception. It says someone must have a license before doing something. Merely observing someone driving in no way provides RAS that the driver does not have a license or that any illegality is afoot.

In contrast with that; in example 1) an officer doesn't need to prove the non-existence of the theoretical 'tax stamp'; it's illegal without it. He is authorized to investigate the matter ('it's illegal to ....') but it's up to the ham sandwich eater to prove that he has obtained the proper tax stamp. The officer is not required to prove the suspect has the proper tax stamp.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
One could as easily use TX's homicide law as my example 1)
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.
(a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.
(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

If an officer sees you run someone through with a broadsword, he has RAS of criminal homicide right then and there.

Chapter 9 is the list of justifications for having run someone through with a broadsword. particularly sub-chapter C. 9.31. Self Defense, 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person, 9.33. Defense of Third Person and 9.34. Protection of Life or Health.
 

budha3

Newbie
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
1
Location
New Orleans
I can't understand the can't understand the fasination with guns

I am new to the forum so bear with me. I was a post certified police officer in New Orleans. I once was cleaning my gum, and I counted 3 times how many bullets I had taken out. After I was certain that I had taken 6 bullets out I pointed the gun toward the windshield of the police car. The something remarkable happened It was if something took my hand and pointed the gun toward the side door of the vehicle. When I pulled the trigger the gun fired, and I was devastated. My cousin was working a a Pizza Hut, and there was police officer working a detail there. The officer; who was certain that he had removed all he bullets, began to show my cousin some tricks he had learned with guns. The officer then pointed the gun toward himself and pulled the trigger; he was killed instantly. My point is even trained police officers can make mistakes with guns, so I know that guns should not be in the hands of everybody, because guns have the propensity to end the lives of people; even those that are trained. This is the reason why I Can't understand the fascination with guns
Above from KWTX.com

So, in your new state law, the legislator has decided that carrying a gun openly waives your 4th Amendment rights, which it does not. I hope all you guys refuse to provide your permits to police who stop you unjustifiably. As an Indiana resident, I've brought up this issue on the IN board, and have even found relevant case law that would back my argument.

There is no state law that would require you to present ID and/or permit JUST for carrying a weapon. They can not perform an "arrest" to investigate if you've committed a crime without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Some think an "arrest" only occurs when they put cuffs on you. This is not correct. Remember; an arrest is when you are stopped by police either physically (even a simple touch), an act where a person feels like they are not allow to leave, like an officer activating his emergency lights and pulling you over or next to you on the sidewalk, or any other act that reasonably makes you feel detained or not free to leave.

Once again, I hope if you're stopped that you all refuse to ID yourselves, unless they cite a ordinance or statute you have violated.

"Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states."
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Allow me to see if I can explain better then...

521.021 A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
vs.
My example 1) It is illegal to eat a ham sandwich on Sunday without obtaining a tax stamp.

In 521.021 is does not say it's illegal to drive (which could provide RAS by merely seeing someone drive) and then provides an exception. It says someone must have a license before doing something. Merely observing someone driving in no way provides RAS that the driver does not have a license or that any illegality is afoot.

In contrast with that; in example 1) an officer doesn't need to prove the non-existence of the theoretical 'tax stamp'; it's illegal without it. He is authorized to investigate the matter ('it's illegal to ....') but it's up to the ham sandwich eater to prove that he has obtained the proper tax stamp. The officer is not required to prove the suspect has the proper tax stamp.

No, it doesn't say that. The difference is not the keyword "illegal"... The difference, best I can tell from your examples, is whether it creates a prohibition or a requirement. The Texas code creates a prohibition. It does not say you must have a license to drive. It does say you cannot drive unless you have a license.

But I don't think it really matters. I don't think rewording the statute to make a "requirement" instead of a "prohibition" is really the key to this dilemma.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
One could as easily use TX's homicide law as my example 1)


If an officer sees you run someone through with a broadsword, he has RAS of criminal homicide right then and there.

Chapter 9 is the list of justifications for having run someone through with a broadsword. particularly sub-chapter C. 9.31. Self Defense, 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person, 9.33. Defense of Third Person and 9.34. Protection of Life or Health.

These are specifically defenses to prosecution. The contents of nonapplicability section 46.15 are specifically not defenses to prosecution.*

*According to the legislature. IMO any judge that rules contrary is essentially thumbing his nose at the legislature saying I don't like the laws that passed, so I'll pretend they didn't.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
got to watch those darn displaced carpetbaggers...

thanks for the offer, (thanks for the segue way...) but we have OC w/o a privilege card...now if we want to meet in SC, those citizens are in need of our assistance...

ipse

And thanks to a felon(US V Black) police cannot legally demand to see ID for OC. OCers can thank their pro gun orgs for this problem. They fought no permit carry all the way, just like they fought OC in Illinois, yet they claim to be for OC.
 
Top