-
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.
-
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.
TLS Edwin Walker says Texans will be required to ID on demand
- Thread starter stealthyeliminator
- Start date
lockman
State Researcher
No audio for me.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
The audio in the video is very poor. You might have to turn your speakers up a significant amount. I did.
Ken56
Regular Member
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.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
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.
But we well see court challenges on the way I would believe.
+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
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
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?
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?
nonameisgood
Regular Member
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.
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)......
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)......
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nonameisgood
Regular Member
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."
JDW1911
Newbie
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!
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
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.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
According to Edwin it might even create PC for arrest. It's some pretty TWISTED logic, for sure!
nonameisgood
Regular Member
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
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
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
nonameisgood
Regular Member
We-the-People
Regular Member
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:
We-the-People
Regular Member
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.