Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 113

Thread: TLS Edwin Walker says Texans will be required to ID on demand

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    TLS Edwin Walker says Texans will be required to ID on demand

    But what do you think about that, eh?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSFEfiCvFl0
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    No audio for me.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    The audio in the video is very poor. You might have to turn your speakers up a significant amount. I did.
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Re: OC Walker says CHL license must be shown if requested of OCer by LEO - probably cause is OC violates Tex 46.02 unless you have CHL.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    Very much the same as we have here in TN. Default is its illegal to posses a firearm in public without a license, thus RAS is established allowing LEO to stop and identify/verify you are compliant within the law. I honestly believe its unconstitutional because it requires one to purchase their right to bear arms from the state. If you can't afford it, too bad, can't exercise your right to bear arms........ oh wait, you can at/on your own property..... just don't leave your property.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    Should not be any more so then driving ones car. One does not get pulled over just to check lic.

    But we well see court challenges on the way I would believe.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  7. #7
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken56 View Post
    Very much the same as we have here in TN. Default is its illegal to posses a firearm in public without a license, thus RAS is established allowing LEO to stop and identify/verify you are compliant within the law. I honestly believe its unconstitutional because it requires one to purchase their right to bear arms from the state. If you can't afford it, too bad, can't exercise your right to bear arms........ oh wait, you can at/on your own property..... just don't leave your property.
    +1

    but Ken, wait the good citizens of the Lonestar state know their legislative representatives will rectify the situation 'during the next session' or will it be the time after or...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    This has already been ruled on US V Deberry, and in US V Black, among with other rulings. Plus if a person is carrying illegally they cannot be forced to give up their 5th amendment right to self incrimination.

    Nothing in the law that was passed gives specific power to police to violate rights, and demand ID. They just left out codifying the already existing right. It is illegal in many states to be intoxicated in public, but that does not give police the right to stop individuals to see if they have been drinking without RAS. Driving is another example, plus many others.

    It is illegal to wear a police uniform, badge, and represent as a police officer. Does that give LAC the right with no interaction, or RAS, or PC to demand the officer's papers?
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    It was very clearly the intent of the legislature that an officer may NOT ask and expect to see a License to Carry a Handgun (the new name for the CHL, effective Jan 1, 2016) if the only reason for asking is that someone is openly carrying a handgun in a belt or shoulder holster. This was repeatedly discussed during the debates/discussions on the House and Senate floors. The legislators stated that existing protections already prevent this behavior by law enforcement, which is why I am confused about why there was a need to strip the amendment. LE may think this gives them permission, but it certainly does not.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    If this fight for liberty was easy everyone would be free....... It is a constant struggle to restrain government overreach, abuse, or pestilence...... With that said if the police will widespread harass open carriers, the legislature will address it next time. It is important we document unreasonable police show me your paper demands and inform the legislative body......
    I am personally optimistic that police will leave open carriers alone for most cases.......
    Imagine you driving to work and being pulled over every time a cop sees you driving to ask for a driver license. It is illegal to drive without a license, so why not? Moreover, cars kill way more people than guns, so it is definitely a deadlier tool..... Oh wait, that pesky case law Delaware v Prause (mentioned by Mike on the other thread)......

  11. #11
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Going to start working on local PDs - Dallas, Highland Park, University Park - Sen Huffines district - to go over OC Squad Training bulletins. I think it w/b very 'helpful' to have Senator staff kept in the loop as to how PDs plan to respond to OC on 1/1/16. Especially dispatchers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Going to start working on local PDs - Dallas, Highland Park, University Park - Sen Huffines district - to go over OC Squad Training bulletins. I think it w/b very 'helpful' to have Senator staff kept in the loop as to how PDs plan to respond to OC on 1/1/16. Especially dispatchers.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I have some contacts in a local PD, but they don't take instruction well from "civilians."

    Have you seen the video going around of an officer breaking a motorist's window simply because he was speeding and refused to ID until a supervisor arrived? Terrible overreaction by the officer, and I believe there will be a settlement. The officer is being praised for his patience, despite having no real reason for breaking the window and forcefully subduing the motorist. The officer appears to react violently because his authority was questioned rather than there being a threat or ANY danger. The driver was an jerk but that does not justify the officer's actions. But I am quietly watching the officers and their friends and families talking about how the officer "obviously" did the right thing. The us-versus-them attitude is wrong and I do not see it changing.
    I see OC having the potential to go the same way for many people who lawfully refuse to ID.

    Or as my niece says, "you can be right or you can be happy."

  13. #13
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Carthage Texas
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    +1

    but Ken, wait the good citizens of the Lonestar state know their legislative representatives will rectify the situation 'during the next session' or will it be the time after or...

    ipse
    Yes siree bob! We have some lawmakers in our state at this time that seem to have the gonads
    to retake our rights thus undoing decades of liberal damage. In fact I believe and hope they're the team to carry Texas into secession. Free people can only stand so much and they'll buck the system as the colonists did when they gave old King George the finger!

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken56 View Post
    Very much the same as we have here in TN. Default is its illegal to posses a firearm in public without a license, thus RAS is established allowing LEO to stop and identify/verify you are compliant within the law. I honestly believe its unconstitutional because it requires one to purchase their right to bear arms from the state. If you can't afford it, too bad, can't exercise your right to bear arms........ oh wait, you can at/on your own property..... just don't leave your property.
    How can they tell by mere observation you don't have your papers?

    It does not create RAS. They can't just assume you are breaking the law.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How can they tell by mere observation you don't have your papers?

    It does not create RAS. They can't just assume you are breaking the law.
    According to Edwin it might even create PC for arrest. It's some pretty TWISTED logic, for sure!
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    So this guy makes money when we are afraid, and yet you listen him as though he is the authoritah? Ok.
    My take is that he is guessing and most likely trying to drum up business. That is what the skeptic in me says.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    It was very clearly the intent of the legislature that an officer may NOT ask and expect to see a License to Carry a Handgun (the new name for the CHL, effective Jan 1, 2016) if the only reason for asking is that someone is openly carrying a handgun in a belt or shoulder holster. This was repeatedly discussed during the debates/discussions on the House and Senate floors. The legislators stated that existing protections already prevent this behavior by law enforcement, which is why I am confused about why there was a need to strip the amendment. LE may think this gives them permission, but it certainly does not.
    did the kind legislature(s) provide any indication where in the lonestar statutes these protections existed?

    finally if it was clearly the intent...they wouldn't have stripped the amendment...

    the nice LE's already believe they are invincible and when you are being asked for you ID noname, you can use 'it was clearly the intent...' as your mantra to refuse to show your privilege card to the nice LE.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    did the kind legislature(s) provide any indication where in the lonestar statutes these protections existed?

    finally if it was clearly the intent...they wouldn't have stripped the amendment...

    the nice LE's already believe they are invincible and when you are being asked for you ID noname, you can use 'it was clearly the intent...' as your mantra to refuse to show your privilege card to the nice LE.

    ipse
    Ok


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This has already been ruled on US V Deberry, and in US V Black, among with other rulings. Plus if a person is carrying illegally they cannot be forced to give up their 5th amendment right to self incrimination.

    Nothing in the law that was passed gives specific power to police to violate rights, and demand ID. They just left out codifying the already existing right. It is illegal in many states to be intoxicated in public, but that does not give police the right to stop individuals to see if they have been drinking without RAS. Driving is another example, plus many others.

    It is illegal to wear a police uniform, badge, and represent as a police officer. Does that give LAC the right with no interaction, or RAS, or PC to demand the officer's papers?


    EDITED

    I must change my position after having spent 24 minutes on the phone with TLS. While they don't like it either, the way the law is written and currently interacts with existing laws on the books in Texas, TLS is giving good advice in the video

    Those who want to be test cases are welcome to step up but it is likely to be a long and expensive fight.




    IGNORE MY ORIGINAL POST BELOW THIS POINT

    I AGREE

    This Texas Law Shield guy IS NOT giving proper advice.

    The Supreme Court has been VERY CLEAR. Where it is lawful to carry a firearm the mere presence of a firearm does not create RAS and that this includes situations where one must be licensed to carry that firearm. Officers MUST have more than the mere presence of the firearm to meet the RAS requirements of a detainment.

    Further, NO WHERE in this country must you ID yourself unless in a state with a "stop and ID" statute AND the officer has already made a lawful detainment based upon RAS that he had BEFORE the detainment.

    As far as I'm concerned, the lawyer in the video definitely needs a lot more practice.
    Last edited by We-the-People; 06-16-2015 at 12:46 PM. Reason: Change in position
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  20. #20
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I just contacted Texas Law Shield to complain about this "program attorney" and his video. Can't be having bogus information put out there sullying their good reputation.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    did the kind legislature(s) provide any indication where in the lonestar statutes these protections existed?
    My understanding is that it is case law, and not by statutes. In addition to the above cited, TX does not allow for things like that to be applied if they are not specifically called out by other law. One similar issue is DWI checkpoints where Texas has determined that it is unconstitutional to have them and to conduct random stops, and so they are not authorized in Texas (see 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster View Post
    My understanding is that it is case law, and not by statutes. In addition to the above cited, TX does not allow for things like that to be applied if they are not specifically called out by other law. One similar issue is DWI checkpoints where Texas has determined that it is unconstitutional to have them and to conduct random stops, and so they are not authorized in Texas (see 887 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
    Yet, Dallas still has "no refusal" DWI events.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    Yet, Dallas still has "no refusal" DWI events.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Which seems to have been all the more reason then to have had it directly included with HB 910.
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I just contacted Texas Law Shield to complain about this "program attorney" and his video. Can't be having bogus information put out there sullying their good reputation.
    Judging from my experience with them, your response will be a one liner blowing you off, followed by a lengthy sales pitch.

  25. #25
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    This has already been ruled on US V Deberry, and in US V Black, among with other rulings. Plus if a person is carrying illegally they cannot be forced to give up their 5th amendment right to self incrimination.
    Do you have any 5th Circuit Federal case law or Texas case law supporting your position? If you don't then police will be free to stop and demand to see your permit until the 5th Circuit or a Texas state court says they cannot. Any lawsuit will be dismissed because the courts will say that the police have qualified immunity and, of course, those dismissals will not settle the constitutional questions. For that, you'll need to find a police officer who said he will stop people he see's openly carrying handguns, demand to see their permit and then file a lawsuit seeking an injunction.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	NRA Suckers.jpg 
Views:	126 
Size:	97.4 KB 
ID:	12588
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •