• 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.

Showing ID to police

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
I am guessing you took an oath similar to this:
"I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."

Or this:

"I, ________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office _____________, of the City of Lewisville, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of this State and the Charter and Ordinances of this city; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed, nor promised to contribute any money or valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment as a reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election at which I was elected, or if the office is one of appointment, to secure my appointment. So help me God."


so I guess it depends upon how much priority you place upon to the best of your ability preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing that REQUIRES you as a law enforcement officer to demand to see the person's license to carry. As solus pointed out - Joe Citizen is under no obligation to show you a license to carry unless you demand it.
Yes my oath was similar to the top one, I am a state employee. However it is not up to me to demand the ID/LTC it is written that the holder of the LTC is required to disclose their armed status and present the DL/LTC at that time. Not doing so is actually a chargeable offense, but my dealings with people that had their CHL (LTC) have always been pretty positive and usually result in a warning issued or even just a verbal warning if at all possible.

Generally the people that have gone through the process of taking the class, getting the background checks and paying the license fees aren't willing to risk losing anything by being stubborn. These encounters are almost always traffic related. I am very pro-gun, and a huge carry advocate, I obtained my CHL (now LTC) and when I am off I carry on the license, usually burying my agency ID in the back of my wallet and unless absolutely necessary I do not identify myself as anything other than john q public when I encounter other officers that do not personally know me already.

As many have alluded to, if I am not in the official performance of my duties and have reasonable suspicion that you have done anything, then you do not have to talk to me or show me anything. But unless I have a reason to contact you I am going on about my business and you go on with yours.

Contrary to popular misconception, it was the police chiefs and other appointed/elected officials that opposed open carry, rank and file officers generally had no issue with it and since the law went into effect there have been no issues related that have been reported, we did the update training there were some town meetings held and everyone went about life as usual on January 1st.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
commander, et al., since there was a lapse of a cite, here is the oath required of commissioned Peace Officers in the state of Texas:

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION


ARTICLE 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS


Sec. 1. OFFICIAL OATH. (a) All elected and appointed officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."


(b) All elected or appointed officers, before taking the Oath or Affirmation of office prescribed by this section and entering upon the duties of office, shall subscribe to the following statement:
"I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, promised to pay, contributed, or promised to contribute any money or thing of value, or promised any public office or employment for the giving or withholding of a vote at the election at which I was elected or as a reward to secure my appointment or confirmation, whichever the case may be, so help me God." unquote.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.16.htm

per the 1977 'opinion' rendered by the Texas AG:
Commissioned law enforcement officers of the Department of Public Safety are `appointed officers' required to take the oath of office prescribed by article 16, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. Whether a fee paid by a prospective appointee to a private employment agency constitutes a reward paid to secure the appointment depends upon whether the employment agency plays any role in the Department's process of selecting new officers.


Very truly yours,


John L. Hill Attorney General of Texas

https://casetext.com/case/opinion-no-3732


ipse
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

IF Officer Friendly is detaining me because he has a reasonable suspicion that criminality is afoot and I'm involved, I'm all for being disarmed. If Officer Friendly thinks he's going to disarm me while he has a little 'voluntary encounter/field interview/fishing expedition' going on, I've got news for him; the voluntary part of the encounter is now over and he can return my property and I'll go skip merrily down the road or he can make a detention in which case I haven't a single thing to say to him. His decision, of course, since he's the one with all the authority.
Texas Government Code Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Now the only time I am going to ask you for ID is if there is some reason I have to contact you in an official capacity, otherwise it is have a nice day go on about your business. GC411 and all other laws pertaining to carrying open or concealed weapons apply to persons licensed out of state as well, if we recognize your license/permit you are obligated to obey the laws of this state as well.

It's really never been an issue as far as I go, and generally if you have LTC or whatever your state calls it the encounter goes really well, I already know that you are among the law abiding and have gone through whatever process your state requires.

I am not your enemy, my coworkers are not your enemy.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
Yes my oath was similar to the top one, I am a state employee. However it is not up to me to demand the ID/LTC it is written that the holder of the LTC is required to disclose their armed status and present the DL/LTC at that time. Not doing so is actually a chargeable offense, but my dealings with people that had their CHL (LTC) have always been pretty positive and usually result in a warning issued or even just a verbal warning if at all possible.

Generally the people that have gone through the process of taking the class, getting the background checks and paying the license fees aren't willing to risk losing anything by being stubborn. These encounters are almost always traffic related. I am very pro-gun, and a huge carry advocate, I obtained my CHL (now LTC) and when I am off I carry on the license, usually burying my agency ID in the back of my wallet and unless absolutely necessary I do not identify myself as anything other than john q public when I encounter other officers that do not personally know me already.

As many have alluded to, if I am not in the official performance of my duties and have reasonable suspicion that you have done anything, then you do not have to talk to me or show me anything. But unless I have a reason to contact you I am going on about my business and you go on with yours.

Contrary to popular misconception, it was the police chiefs and other appointed/elected officials that opposed open carry, rank and file officers generally had no issue with it and since the law went into effect there have been no issues related that have been reported, we did the update training there were some town meetings held and everyone went about life as usual on January 1st.
sorry, as i am sure you are aware there is a provision to cite in the forum rules...

therefore, since you stated, quote ...it is written...unquote could you provide the appropriate cites where the citizen is, quote: ...required...unquote as well as failure, quote...chargeable offense...unquote?

and could you please clarify your use of the that have been reported comment for members of the forum...whom would have done the reporting? the news? the citizen who has a chargeable offense? just whom is doing this report that there are no reports of?

ipse

addendeum...like the phrasing you used, quote: ...unless absolutely necessary I do not identify myself as anything other than john q public when I encounter other officers that do not personally know me already. unquote meaning if your silly butt gets hassled by a nice peace officer demanding your permit since they didn't recognize you as someone special? then you flash your badge...btw...is that before or after the nice peace officer exercised 'their right' to disarm you?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
Texas Government Code Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Now the only time I am going to ask you for ID is if there is some reason I have to contact you in an official capacity, otherwise it is have a nice day go on about your business. GC411 and all other laws pertaining to carrying open or concealed weapons apply to persons licensed out of state as well, if we recognize your license/permit you are obligated to obey the laws of this state as well.

It's really never been an issue as far as I go, and generally if you have LTC or whatever your state calls it the encounter goes really well, I already know that you are among the law abiding and have gone through whatever process your state requires.

I am not your enemy, my coworkers are not your enemy.
there is that pesky word demands...again...where is the words you stated quote: is required to unquote...

could you clarify your statement, quote:...reason you have have to contact someone carrying in your official capacity unquote? uh, to validate they have a permit ?

ipse
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
btw, radio, has your oaths of office been filed with and on record with the Texas Sec of State IAW Texas Constitution 16, sec 1c?

just asking...

ipse
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
... However it is not up to me to demand the ID/LTC it is written that the holder of the LTC is required to disclose their armed status and present the DL/LTC at that time. Not doing so is actually a chargeable offense, ...
I think the legislature would beg to differ. Notice that the offense created under GC 411.205 was removed. An offense under GC 411.205 may not be prosecuted after the effective date of the bill removing it (which was in 2009 I believe - about 7 years ago), and further, any pending criminal actions for offense under 411.205, on the same effective date, were to be dismissed. Edit to add: I've never learned how to make proper legal cites, but I can provide a link if it is desired.

There is no requirement to disclose armed status.

I know a lot of departments received "training" regarding the new open carry laws, but I have reason to believe in more cases than not that this "training" was tainted with misleading information, and opinion positioned as fact, slanted heavily towards an authoritarian bias. In my opinion you should simply read the Texas Constitution and act accordingly.

Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

Stop-and-ID laws, as well as mandatory-announcement laws, including the now-neutered GC 411.205, are completely and totally incompatible with the Texas Constitution and its inspiring principles. I hate to be disagreeable, and if you are a LEO in Texas I respect you for the good that you do, but stop-and-ID laws are a disgrace to liberty. Edit to add: It would seem that you are not the kind of person that would try to abuse such laws, and that's great, I'm not trying to disparage you in any way.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
I think the legislature would beg to differ. Notice that the offense created under GC 411.205 was removed. An offense under GC 411.205 may not be prosecuted after the effective date of the bill removing it (which was in 2009 I believe - about 7 years ago), and further, any pending criminal actions for offense under 411.205, on the same effective date, were to be dismissed. Edit to add: I've never learned how to make proper legal cites, but I can provide a link if it is desired.

There is no requirement to disclose armed status.

I know a lot of departments received "training" regarding the new open carry laws, but I have reason to believe in more cases than not that this "training" was tainted with misleading information, and opinion positioned as fact, slanted heavily towards an authoritarian bias. In my opinion you should simply read the Texas Constitution and act accordingly.

Sec. 9. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

Stop-and-ID laws, as well as mandatory-announcement laws, including the now-neutered GC 411.205, are completely and totally incompatible with the Texas Constitution and its inspiring principles. I hate to be disagreeable, and if you are a LEO in Texas I respect you for the good that you do, but stop-and-ID laws are a disgrace to liberty. Edit to add: It would seem that you are not the kind of person that would try to abuse such laws, and that's great, I'm not trying to disparage you in any way.

thanks stealthy...your clarification is appreciated...

ipse
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
there is that pesky word demands...again...where is the words you stated quote: is required to unquote...

could you clarify your statement, quote:...reason you have have to contact someone carrying in your official capacity unquote? uh, to validate they have a permit ?

ipse
Stop and ID is not at all what I was implying, I don't operate that way.

So not for the sole purpose of determining permit status, my assumption is that if you are concealed no one knows, if you OC and it's in a proper holster like the law says then you are legit as well, I only ask for ID in conjunction with a contact such as a traffic stop, or other legit investigation purpose (you called us, accident, robbery witness/victim, etc.) I don't care if someone is carrying, I actually wanted Constitutional Carry to be enacted and feel much as most here do, if it requires a permit or license it is still not a right as defined by the 2A.

And you are right, I looked at the new version of GC411, the penalty has been removed for the failure to disclose status. There are still a lot of copies of the old version out there. People are still conditioned to the requirements of the old 411.205a that they still automatically hand over permit with DL.

The training we received on it, covered a lot of changes, and as it was given before the law changed on Jan 1st, it was presented as both "current" and "change" so I can see where I still read that as being in effect. The official version of GC411 without the before and after Jan 1 language is much clearer on the subject. So I have printed off a new copy and it is going to work with me tomorrow. I plan to share it with others.

Thanks for making me question my understanding of the statute, laws change and we need to be reminded of that from time to time.

There is a lot of information in the TPC, TGC, and CCP in addition to department policies and procedures that we are responsible for and as has been pointed out before, most cops do not know all of it, that would be impossible you only get familiar with the areas you deal with most.

It is good that people are up to date on the laws, but I also have noticed that different groups are up to date on whatever section of statute pertains to their particular interests.
 
Last edited:

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
btw, radio, has your oaths of office been filed with and on record with the Texas Sec of State IAW Texas Constitution 16, sec 1c?

just asking...

ipse
I assume it is, I have been a state employee for 15 years, we as a class took the oath at graduation from the academy and filled out a mountain of paperwork during that time.
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
Careful differentiation must be made between verbal identification and surrendering ones identity papers. Where legal, carry sterile. Be sterile of papers while legal.
GC411.205 still requires the presentation of the DL and LTC, the wording is "Shall" but there is no penalty for not doing so.

So effectively that section should be stricken altogether, it really serves no purpose.

If a license holder is detained or arrested, then upon discovery of the weapon that is the only time license status should come into play as carrying handguns and other prohibited weapons is covered under PC 46.02 with the license to carry a handgun under GC411 being excepted.

Tough crowd in here, but very welcome as well. I love being challenged and even proven wrong, everyone learns something.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,237
Location
here nc
GC411.205 still requires the presentation of the DL and LTC, the wording is "Shall" but there is no penalty for not doing so.

So effectively that section should be stricken altogether, it really serves no purpose.

If a license holder is detained or arrested, then upon discovery of the weapon that is the only time license status should come into play as carrying handguns and other prohibited weapons is covered under PC 46.02 with the license to carry a handgun under GC411 being excepted.
you seem to miss keep missing the point...'requires' is done so after being demanded to produce

and your concept of...discovery of a 'weapon'...we are talking OC'g a firearm (wait i am still on OCDO...yepper) ...unless blind and dumb come into play...there is no discovery by anybody...it is visible...

so for a visible firearm...demand papers is still the optimum concept, eh?

btw...to quantify your perception further from your statement, quote: It is good that people are up to date on the laws, but I also have noticed that different groups are up to date on whatever section of statute pertains to their particular interests. unquote thank goodness citizens , not groups, have such a breadth of knowledge and the capability to challenge that knowledge so they are able to keep up to date on a myriad of other 'particular interests' and they do it so well...

i am truly sorry you did not challenge, but blindly accepted, your apparently biased training, but i am thankful you are capable of acknowledging the forum's citizens by adjusting your knowledge that your training might have been skewed...

now if we can get that pesky mentality over the word 'required' worked out ...:shocker:

ipse
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
you seem to miss keep missing the point...'requires' is done so after being demanded to produce

and your concept of...discovery of a 'weapon'...we are talking OC'g a firearm (wait i am still on OCDO...yepper) ...unless blind and dumb come into play...there is no discovery by anybody...it is visible...

so for a visible firearm...demand papers is still the optimum concept, eh?

btw...to quantify your perception further from your statement, quote: It is good that people are up to date on the laws, but I also have noticed that different groups are up to date on whatever section of statute pertains to their particular interests. unquote thank goodness citizens , not groups, have such a breadth of knowledge and the capability to challenge that knowledge so they are able to keep up to date on a myriad of other 'particular interests' and they do it so well...

i am truly sorry you did not challenge, but blindly accepted, your apparently biased training, but i am thankful you are capable of acknowledging the forum's citizens by adjusting your knowledge that your training might have been skewed...

now if we can get that pesky mentality over the word 'required' worked out ...:shocker:

ipse
We seem to be hung up over the word "demand", say for example I stop you for a traffic violation (speeding, improper lane change, etc.) after I make contact with you and identify myself and the reason for the stop, I am going to ask for your DL, I will already know the registration and insurance status of your vehicle here so at that point I guess you could consider that the "demand" requiring disclosure. To me the word "demand" is confrontational, as it is not really what I am doing, I am asking you to comply with my request.

That is where the wording of .205 is interesting, upon demand it is required to present both the DL/LTC if you are carrying, it places the burden of "shall" present both the DL and LTC upon the license holder, however as pointed out there is no penalty for not disclosing LTC. Making that particular part of the statute irrelevant as there is no penalty for not doing so.

As far as discovery goes, if you are detained or arrested there will be a search or pat down for weapons conducted either incident to arrest or for officer safety as provided by Terry v. Ohio, if you are seated in a vehicle even an openly carried firearm will probably not be readily discernable until or if you exit the vehicle.

If you are out walking around minding your own business, then I have zero reason or interest in stopping you for anything. I have seen 3 or 4 people who were open carrying, the only thing I did was look at them saw they were carrying in a belt holster and never said a word to them. Exercise your rights.

For my own experience, this simply has never been an issue as it seems most people just have both DL/LTC out when I approach the vehicle, that is what a lot of them were taught in the old CHL class so it stuck with them. I have never asked for a CHL/LTC only DL, if they show me both the only question I ask in relation to the firearm is where is it located, I haven't ever disarmed anyone carrying legally just ask them not to touch the weapon until I am gone.

I fully support the 2A, and yes I view having to get a license as an infringement, every step closer to removing those restrictions is a good thing, first it was CC, now it is OC as well, next hopefully will be Constitutional Carry not all cops are gun people, but I was a gun person long before I started working for the State.

I personally have an LTC, I took the class, shot the q course and paid my fees like everyone else, when I am off work, I carry on that, burying my state ID in my wallet.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
you seem to miss keep missing the point...'requires' is done so after being demanded to produce

and your concept of...discovery of a 'weapon'...we are talking OC'g a firearm (wait i am still on OCDO...yepper) ...unless blind and dumb come into play...there is no discovery by anybody...it is visible...

so for a visible firearm...demand papers is still the optimum concept, eh?

btw...to quantify your perception further from your statement, quote: It is good that people are up to date on the laws, but I also have noticed that different groups are up to date on whatever section of statute pertains to their particular interests. unquote thank goodness citizens , not groups, have such a breadth of knowledge and the capability to challenge that knowledge so they are able to keep up to date on a myriad of other 'particular interests' and they do it so well...

i am truly sorry you did not challenge, but blindly accepted, your apparently biased training, but i am thankful you are capable of acknowledging the forum's citizens by adjusting your knowledge that your training might have been skewed...

now if we can get that pesky mentality over the word 'required' worked out ...:shocker:

ipse
Indeed OC does not depend on the ability of the other to see/discover it. OC is purely a function of how the handgun is carried.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Stop and ID is not at all what I was implying, I don't operate that way.
That's the gist I got, and I appreciate that. :thumbs up:

It is good that people are up to date on the laws, but I also have noticed that different groups are up to date on whatever section of statute pertains to their particular interests.
Definitely true, definitely true. I'm not in law enforcement so I guess I wouldn't know, but it seems like there are a lot of different laws, different types of laws even, that an officer has to try to keep up with. If it gets to a point where officers can't reasonably keep up, to me that seems like all the more reason to start culling the statutes and cleaning out as much arbitrary, especially left-over, crap as possible.

So effectively that section should be stricken altogether, it really serves no purpose.
I completely agree... And, if LEOs testified in the legislature's committees agreeing that it should be fully repealed, "cleaned up" so to speak, that would probably go a long way towards getting it cleaned up. There are several other little things scattered here and there that should be cleaned up as well.
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
That's the gist I got, and I appreciate that. :thumbs up:



Definitely true, definitely true. I'm not in law enforcement so I guess I wouldn't know, but it seems like there are a lot of different laws, different types of laws even, that an officer has to try to keep up with. If it gets to a point where officers can't reasonably keep up, to me that seems like all the more reason to start culling the statutes and cleaning out as much arbitrary, especially left-over, crap as possible.



I completely agree... And, if LEOs testified in the legislature's committees agreeing that it should be fully repealed, "cleaned up" so to speak, that would probably go a long way towards getting it cleaned up. There are several other little things scattered here and there that should be cleaned up as well.
Unfortunately the only ones that seem to testify in the legislature are administrators, some of which are clearly against the idea of "mere" citizens carrying firearms. For the most part regular Joe patrolman does not care if you are carrying, just if you are doing so responsibly and legally, which is discernable from your actions. In the next few months or years there will be test cases on both sides, officers that push too hard and citizens that push just as hard, the courts will decide the outcome of those scenarios.

If there is no clear violation of the statute then everyone should go about their business and have a good day.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Unfortunately the only ones that seem to testify in the legislature are administrators, some of which are clearly against the idea of "mere" citizens carrying firearms. For the most part regular Joe patrolman does not care if you are carrying, just if you are doing so responsibly and legally, which is discernable from your actions. In the next few months or years there will be test cases on both sides, officers that push too hard and citizens that push just as hard, the courts will decide the outcome of those scenarios.

If there is no clear violation of the statute then everyone should go about their business and have a good day.
You could testify... Perhaps not officially as a representative of your department, but you could still testify as an individual and still present the fact that you are in law enforcement.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,131
Location
White Oak Plantation
Stop and ID is not at all what I was implying, I don't operate that way.

So not for the sole purpose of determining permit status, my assumption is that if you are concealed no one knows, if you OC and it's in a proper holster like the law says then you are legit as well, I only ask for ID in conjunction with a contact such as a traffic stop, or other legit investigation purpose (you called us, accident, robbery witness/victim, etc.) I don't care if someone is carrying, I actually wanted Constitutional Carry to be enacted and feel much as most here do, if it requires a permit or license it is still not a right as defined by the 2A. ...
Unfortunately the only ones that seem to testify in the legislature are administrators, some of which are clearly against the idea of "mere" citizens carrying firearms. For the most part regular Joe patrolman does not care if you are carrying, just if you are doing so responsibly and legally, which is discernible from your actions. In the next few months or years there will be test cases on both sides, officers that push too hard and citizens that push just as hard, the courts will decide the outcome of those scenarios.

If there is no clear violation of the statute then everyone should go about their business and have a good day.
Why must there be a test case at all if the majority of your fellow officers share your views regarding visibly armed citizens. Why would such a officer, who could instigate a test case, be tolerated to remain on the force?

It seems from your posts that you would not "stop & ID" a OCer, yet you will if he calls you.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,903
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Sec. 311.016. "MAY," "SHALL," "MUST," ETC. The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:
(1) "May" creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power.
(2) "Shall" imposes a duty.
(3) "Must" creates or recognizes a condition precedent.
(4) "Is entitled to" creates or recognizes a right.
(5) "May not" imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with "shall not."
(6) "Is not entitled to" negates a right.
(7) "Is not required to" negates a duty or condition precedent.
After reading all this I come to two conclusions. First, like all other states, law enforcement's ignorant statement that “there goes another citizen who thinks they know the law” proves to be false. My many years of experience has proved to me is that most police officers have no clue as to what the law is. They know what their superiors tell them. The old “I was taught that at the academy” proves that many officers don't believe that they personally have a duty to stay-up with the changing law. Morning briefings is not going to get the the job done. But, it is not all their fault. If the idiot legislatures quit writing laws we all would be better off.

Second, it appears, supposedly according to Texas law, that the only way to exercise your unalienable right to bear arms is to openly carry a long gun. Yet, the Texas constitution does not categorize arms. The Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 1 which states in part “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” which means the Second Amendment to federal constitution applies to Texas. Also, the Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 23 states that “the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” Not create a permitting system. If the permit only allows for the wearing of arms in the “view to prevent crime” then permitting the concealing of a handgun would satisfy the meaning of the Texas constitution. But, not the open carrying of a handgun because the licensing of both would be unconstitutional. License to conceal = privilege. No license to openly carry = right.

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 394 U.S. 147 1969:
“And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.”
Law enforcement officers signed an oath that to the best of their ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state. Law enforcement officers can only enforce lawful orders and lawful laws. Law enforcement officers also have discretion.

Once someone has Notice they cannot turn a blind eye to that notice. In other words, a law enforcement officer has a duty to protect rights of those he swore to protect.

As the Texas constitution says, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself ...” A right, not a privilege.

It would seem to me once a law enforcement officer knows that a law is in direct conflict with the constitution he has a duty to not enforce that repugnant law. A breach of a duty is a breach of an oath.

Pretty simple to me.
 

radio3579

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
29
Location
earth
Why must there be a test case at all if the majority of your fellow officers share your views regarding visibly armed citizens. Why would such a officer, who could instigate a test case, be tolerated to remain on the force?

It seems from your posts that you would not "stop & ID" a OCer, yet you will if he calls you.
Only reason I ID people that call is if they want to make a formal report, to get their contact info for follow up on the case, again if it's not related to our business together I don't care if you are carrying.

As far as test case officer, you never know how someone is going to react or conduct themselves until they do it, cops make mistakes, some are minor some are royal screw-ups that end up costing agencies and municipalities money.
 
Top