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

solus said:

noname that's the point i am trying to discern as you see the statute as it is written. i will say, NC's statutes flatly state if asked in the 'performance of their official duties' and not during 'causal conversation'. personally, any conversation i have with any nice LE, is, from my perspective, being carried out in the performance of their official duties!

so i do not know how to 'read between the lines' with the lonestar's statutes on this one and i have reviewed the entire section H covering CHP.

new year's oc meet on the first in dallas?

BB62 whatcha doing new year's day 2016??

ipse

Click to expand...

I haven't found a credible resource for this yet but, let me try to reason through it and let's see if it sounds right.
The requirement to produce the CHL is based on the officers demand for ID triggering that portion of the code.

Assume for a minute that the CHL is not part of the equation.
The officer makes the demand outside of a detention. Texas laws say you do not need to provide the ID. I posit that you would not need to produce the CHL either.

Now, lets change the scenario back to something a little closer to your question.

The officer (legally or not) has detained you and demanded your papers. The street is not the place to have the argument. You would produce your documents and then take it up later (lots of yelling and hand waving above). BTW the changes in the law remove the penalties for not showing the CHL so I am not sure what they could charge you with if you made it long and tedious getting to that point.

So the encounter would sound something like this :

"May I see your ID and CHL please?"
"Am I free to go?"

IF "Yes" --- move on
IF "No" --- document the encounter and take appropriate action later.

Smile and wave either way.

Does that sound reasonable?

I don't think that people can be prosecuted under 411.205 anymore, which is why I phrased as I did. In hindsight, I should have elaborated to make that clear. It wasn't clear at all where I was going with that.

This is from Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.
SECTION 12A.03. An offense under Section 411.205, Government Code, may not be prosecuted after the effective date of this article. If, on the effective date of this article, a criminal action is pending for an offense under Section 411.205, the action is dismissed on that date. However, a final conviction for an offense under Section 411.205 that exists on the effective date of this article is unaffected by this article.

The following was all repealed
[A person who fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by this subsection is subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by Section 411.187. [(b) A person commits an offense if the person fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by Subsection (a) after previously having had the person's license suspended for a violation of that subsection. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.]

Edit to add: It looks as though statutes authorizing arrest without warrant all use the verbiage "offense" so it would seem to me that arrests for non-compliance with 411.205 should generally not take place, since (it appears to me) the language making it an offense was repealed. I'm not a lawyer, though.

half-life, stealth, et al., thanks for the bkgnd from '09 and the logical walk of chatting with the nice LE ; but you are forgetting all bets are off since you now have a new game in town associated with the state's privilege card.

even in this model of an OC state where you would anticipate the nice peace officers would be appropriately trained by DOJ & their mentors as well as used to seeing citizens OC'g our citizens are stopped (rightly or wrongly is not a distinction i wish to discuss in this post ~ fair?) and now must engage in what i call the dance set to the music by "WHY DO YOU HAVE A GUN!"

(quick war story to reinforce the mind sets of some in LE: when CC came vogue in NC (early-mid 90s), we had a sgt of the local PD ask permission to teach the course to citizens, was told no by the chief who didn't believe in the needs of citizens to CC, got reprimanded, put on desk duty, came close to getting fired, sued locally, appealed to NC's highest court, and won.)

now, not saying your kind LEs are not trained, but there were no provisions in any of the discussions or in the final statute to assure they would be trained in the new statute, are even a requirement to assure they are aware of it, or how to appropriately deal with folk who are OC'g.

if ya'l wish to continue to believe life as you know it is unchanged after 1 Jan 16 and this statute provision is OBE from 2009 then i might not even say ~ "I told ya so' when the reports of your OC'g citizens being stopped for their privilege card start rolling in. For goodness sake, your LE's can't even handle LGOCs with professionalism towards the state's citizens and that stupid ritual has been allowed for how long?

instead of saying it won't happen cuz ... ya'l might wish to start coming up and promoting contingency plans of having your shyster's number in your pocket or speed dial as well as a common mantra to recite to the nice LEs who are: 'just doing my job here LAC, you do understand that don't you, now please let's get this over with and please show me your privilege card' 'NO?' 'hands on your head, fingers interlocked and turn around...' ' now, you're in a heap of trouble, boi!!'

as folk have stated out here you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!!

ipse

Establish that stop is non consensual.

Comply with the illegal order.

Go past go, and decide what to do with your new windfall.

There is no reason for arrest when the LAC complies, and it is not a crime to determine if the stop is non consensual.

Once, and if a few court cases are won, the nice LE will get the message. If they don't eventually it will bite them in the arse. I'm willing to provide ID in NC for a new car, or truck, or motorcycle. When I got stopped by a deputy a couple years back, or maybe it was last year. We did the dance, I did not provide ID, but he did not make it a detention, had he insisted I would have provided it happily, without showing it of course. He did not even get out of his car for our encounter, just followed me down the road while I walked, I never stopped walking. He broke off the encounter and drove away when I pointed out he was jamming traffic up.

Actually I should not call it a stop, since I never stopped walking. If he told me to stop it would have clearly been non consensual.

solus, I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I expect no stops demanding ID or no arrests for refusals... Despite popular belief, I'm not delusional about what could happen.

Now, in my particular area, I doubt I'll have issues, but I'm not placing bets on it, either... We will see.

Now again, one thing I think that all of the activists in Texas should be doing, is continuing and expanding any positive relationships that they currently have with local law enforcement to try and get on the same page prior to January 1.

I think that with larger forces, it can be difficult, especially considering that many times not even everyone on the force itself is on the same page, so how could the entire force be on the same page with citizens, but I think that any effort toward getting on the same page is effort well spent.

I plan on reaching out to local law enforcement contacts to discuss the stop and ID issue. Even if they believe they would be within the law to arrest me for OC after January 1, or even just arrest me if I refuse to ID, I still have until January 1 to try and convince them to choose not to, right? That's nearly 6 months worth of opportunity for conversation and persuasion. And maybe I don't convince anyone, but like I said, I think the effort will be well spent.

SteveInCO said:

Judging from my experience with them, your response will be a one liner blowing you off, followed by a lengthy sales pitch.

Click to expand...

They actually called me, clear out here in Oregon, this morning and we spent 24 minutes discussing the law as it stands and how it interacts within the existing framework. And I'm not even within their market as a potential customer.

While I disagree with the constitutionality of stopping an open carrier in Texas to determine if they have a CHL, the current state of the law will probably support their doing so. At least until someone becomes a test case and goes to the Supreme Court (TX courts are likely to uphold it).

stealthyeliminator said:

solus, I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I expect no stops demanding ID or no arrests for refusals... Despite popular belief, I'm not delusional about what could happen.

Now, in my particular area, I doubt I'll have issues, but I'm not placing bets on it, either... We will see.

Now again, one thing I think that all of the activists in Texas should be doing, is continuing and expanding any positive relationships that they currently have with local law enforcement to try and get on the same page prior to January 1.

I think that with larger forces, it can be difficult, especially considering that many times not even everyone on the force itself is on the same page, so how could the entire force be on the same page with citizens, but I think that any effort toward getting on the same page is effort well spent.

I plan on reaching out to local law enforcement contacts to discuss the stop and ID issue. Even if they believe they would be within the law to arrest me for OC after January 1, or even just arrest me if I refuse to ID, I still have until January 1 to try and convince them to choose not to, right? That's nearly 6 months worth of opportunity for conversation and persuasion. And maybe I don't convince anyone, but like I said, I think the effort will be well spent.

Click to expand...

or you will be made an example of cuz you have PO someone that you aren't even aware you did!!

do not reach out...you'll be misled (read as lied to) be polite but assertive and put the inquiry(ies) in writing...

first, do know if the governmental documents generated at taxpayer expense are retrievable by citizens? if so, do FOIA, cc'g DPS and legislator(s), to get copies of any training procedures/policies from the nice LE agencies for dealing with LAW BIDING citizens carrying a firearm. once in hand (hold your breath as i would bet a box of donuts there is no training material for this subject) and you discern there is no training procedures or policies or it is inadequate, then write to the agency's chief, cc DPS and local legislator(s) asking what is being done about this significant deficiency especially with the new statute coming on line in six months.

whoever controls BLET in your state needs to be queried about the same subject, cc'g of course, legislators & governor, to insure future graduates are aware of the rights of citizens OC'g...both HGs & (shudder) LGs. when you discern there is nothing on dealing with them, push in writing back again cc'g legislator(s) and governor!!

reaching out in a 'goode olde boy' fashion does nothing to advance the crap going on in the back rooms.

yes i stole this idea from a bloke in WA state who deserves the kudos for his inventiveness and am just sharing!!

ipse

stealthyeliminator said:

solus, I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I expect no stops demanding ID or no arrests for refusals... Despite popular belief, I'm not delusional about what could happen.

Now, in my particular area, I doubt I'll have issues, but I'm not placing bets on it, either... We will see.

Now again, one thing I think that all of the activists in Texas should be doing, is continuing and expanding any positive relationships that they currently have with local law enforcement to try and get on the same page prior to January 1.

I think that with larger forces, it can be difficult, especially considering that many times not even everyone on the force itself is on the same page, so how could the entire force be on the same page with citizens, but I think that any effort toward getting on the same page is effort well spent.

I plan on reaching out to local law enforcement contacts to discuss the stop and ID issue. Even if they believe they would be within the law to arrest me for OC after January 1, or even just arrest me if I refuse to ID, I still have until January 1 to try and convince them to choose not to, right? That's nearly 6 months worth of opportunity for conversation and persuasion. And maybe I don't convince anyone, but like I said, I think the effort will be well spent.

Click to expand...

You are correct: there is no longer a penalty for not having your permit with you. No criminal penalty and no more suspension forms officers can fill out and submit to DPS.......... So, after January 1st, if you refuse to show your permit, they will try to arrest you for UCW, not for refusing to show your permit. But, it is the officers job to determine you are not licensed, before arresting you.......... Another possibility is, if you got pulled over for traffic violations or stopped for pedestrian violations, you will just get arrested on those offenses and once arrested you will have to ID and they will find out you have a permit, so you will not be charged with UCW, but you just lended a free trip to jail on a stupid traffic or pedestrian transportation code violation.......

solus said:

or you will be made an example of cuz you have PO someone that you aren't even aware you did!!

do not reach out...you'll be misled (read as lied to) be polite but assertive and put the inquiry(ies) in writing...

first, do know if the governmental documents generated at taxpayer expense are retrievable by citizens? if so, do FOIA, cc'g DPS and legislator(s), to get copies of any training procedures/policies from the nice LE agencies for dealing with LAW BIDING citizens carrying a firearm. once in hand (hold your breath as i would bet a box of donuts there is no training material for this subject) and you discern there is no training procedures or policies or it is inadequate, then write to the agency's chief, cc DPS and local legislator(s) asking what is being done about this significant deficiency especially with the new statute coming on line in six months.

whoever controls BLET in your state needs to be queried about the same subject, cc'g of course, legislators & governor, to insure future graduates are aware of the rights of citizens OC'g...both HGs & (shudder) LGs. when you discern there is nothing on dealing with them, push in writing back again cc'g legislator(s) and governor!!

reaching out in a 'goode olde boy' fashion does nothing to advance the crap going on in the back rooms.

yes i stole this idea from a bloke in WA state who deserves the kudos for his inventiveness and am just sharing!!

ipse

Click to expand...

I appreciate the advice, solus, and will definitely take it into consideration.

Here is the last of many exchanges in the Senate regarding this issue. The ONLY reason the Huffines/Dutton amendment was stripped was because it was understood that police were already prohibited from doing exactly what amendment prohibited:

Texas Senate Journal page 3345 said:

Senator V. Taylor: Clearly. But with the amendment gone, I just want to make sure,
I just wanted to establish some legislative intent here, so, as we discussed, when this
bill was on the floor, there are three kinds of, three kinds of meetings that a police
officer can have with a citizen, right? A voluntary encounter, a temporary detention, or
an arrest.

Senator Estes: I remember that conversation we had.

Senator V. Taylor: Okay, and so, with the bill as it is, a police officer may not detain
a citizen, do not stop them to determine if they have a concealed handgun license
merely because they are carrying openly.

Senator Estes: That’s my understanding of constitutional law and settled case law.

Senator V. Taylor: Okay, however, the other side of that coin, a police officer may
walk up to any individual who is carrying openly and ask them the time of day, what
they had for dinner, where they live, if they have a CHL, how long they’ve had a
CHL, in no way does this bill stop a police officer from conducting a voluntary
encounter with a citizen who’s carrying, an openly carrying a handgun.

Senator Estes: That’s correct.

Senator V. Taylor: Okay, thank you. I think that was a very clear and concise
answers, and I appreciate that. Mr. President, if I could have the exchange between
myself, Senator Estes, reduced to the record for legislative intent.

Click to expand...

Count said:

You are correct: there is no longer a penalty for not having your permit with you. No criminal penalty and no more suspension forms officers can fill out and submit to DPS.......... So, after January 1st, if you refuse to show your permit, they will try to arrest you for UCW, not for refusing to show your permit. But, it is the officers job to determine you are not licensed, before arresting you.......... Another possibility is, if you got pulled over for traffic violations or stopped for pedestrian violations, you will just get arrested on those offenses and once arrested you will have to ID and they will find out you have a permit, so you will not be charged with UCW, but you just lended a free trip to jail on a stupid traffic or pedestrian transportation code violation.......

Click to expand...

thank count, for your reframing and rephrasing the point. done very well and it is appreciated.

ipse

nonameisgood said:

Here is the last of many exchanges in the Senate regarding this issue. The ONLY reason the Huffines/Dutton amendment was stripped was because it was understood that police were already prohibited from doing exactly what amendment prohibited:

Click to expand...

thanks for posting this exchange, it appreciated as it shows the legislature's intent...

so, my read the nice LEs can stop JQPublic OC'r at any time to engage in a voluntary encounter, rounding the questioning to their real purpose of determining if they have a CPL.

there is no statute in place to allow take the citizen's CPL...

but do i have to stop for the nice LE's voluntary encounter to discuss the weather? or will be go down like count described?

ipse

Voluntary encounters are just that and you may say nothing, may walk away, or may engage in the conversation. You are NOT required to show ID or your license to carry a handgun. There is obviously a certain amount of intimidation in such an encounter. I suspect that this duress makes some people confess bad acts or act in a manner which could give rise to a detention. The legislators discussed this and expected it.
The only "prohibited" act by LE would be for them to see the handgun carried openly in a shoulder or belt holster, approach the person only because of that, and demand to see the license.
We all know that some will still do that but will have a canned answer ready, along the lines of "we had reports of a..." or "a man described to us as involved in a crime has an appearance similar to you..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

Voluntary encounters are just that and you may say nothing, may walk away, or may engage in the conversation. You are NOT required to show ID or your license to carry a handgun. There is obviously a certain amount of intimidation in such an encounter. I suspect that this duress makes some people confess bad acts or act in a manner which could give rise to a detention. The legislators discussed this and expected it.
The only "prohibited" act by LE would be for them to see the handgun carried openly in a shoulder or belt holster, approach the person only because of that, and demand to see the license.
We all know that some will still do that but will have a canned answer ready, along the lines of "we had reports of a..." or "a man described to us as involved in a crime has an appearance similar to you..."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

thanks for that...

ipse

nonameisgood said:

Voluntary encounters are just that and you may say nothing, may walk away, or may engage in the conversation. You are NOT required to show ID or your license to carry a handgun. There is obviously a certain amount of intimidation in such an encounter. I suspect that this duress makes some people confess bad acts or act in a manner which could give rise to a detention. The legislators discussed this and expected it.
The only "prohibited" act by LE would be for them to see the handgun carried openly in a shoulder or belt holster, approach the person only because of that, and demand to see the license.
We all know that some will still do that but will have a canned answer ready, along the lines of "we had reports of a..." or "a man described to us as involved in a crime has an appearance similar to you..."

Click to expand...

And I think that's when FOIA of 911 or non-emergency dispatch call logs and of any officer field notes will become important.

Good discussion w Local Police re: OC training

Just got back in town from mission trip in Guatemala and was talking to local PD about an armed robbery a block away.
I moved the conversation over to what are they doing re Officer training and policy re OC? PIO told me they are just starting process to gear up on it.
I told him I've got some sample policies from other States that already have OC (got them from Sudden Valley Gunner) and told him I'd be happy to forward them on to him as a starting point, along with my plans to see if Texas Senator Huffines office wants to be involved. Idea was well-received so I'll try that with other local PD too. Regarding the ugly gorilla in the room - Dallas PD - I'll try the same with them but expect they'll tell me to bug off.

Ken56 said:

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......

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't have the statute handy so if I may paraphrase?
The law in Tenn. isn't that carrying without a license is illegal, the law is that carrying is illegal and having the license is a defense. So, mere observation of a firearm gives a reasonable suspicion that it's being carried and that it's illegal.

Usually, there are two ways these things can be written into the law:
1) As is usually the case with driver's licenses, it's a requirement to have a license to drive on public roads; which would require some suspicion that a license was not present before one could be pulled over to check.
and
2) "It is illegal to do X, unless the person meets the exceptions in a) b) or statute 123.66" , which only requires observation of the act to suspect illegality.

[edit]

39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.

(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club.

Click to expand...

This has been ruled on in Deberry, Judge Posner used the concealed carry in Texas as his basis that if it is legal to carry with a permit there is not RAS. So going by his ruling, which he clearly used Texas, OC with a license would be no different than CC with a license.

A few tidbits:

current Texas law said:

PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or (2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

Click to expand...

which seems to say that carrying is illegal.

BUT:

elsewhere in Texas law said:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
...<snipped for brevity but retaining context>
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;
...
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun;

Click to expand...

and HB910 changes that last provision to:

PC 46.15(b) said:

(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster;

Click to expand...

Which says that if you are carrying under license, it is not illegal to carry. This means that there is no RAS or PC of a crime since carry of a gun is not a crime. Come Jan. 1, this includes open carry in a shoulder or belt holster.
I'm sure there will be plenty of folks exposing IWB holsters or loose in the waistband who will claim they are OK (but they aren't.) No other changes were made to either of the provisions above.

PC 46.02 was modified for OC in a portion I don't show above (bold text below). It makes clear that an exposed, holstered handgun by a license holder is legal in vehicles:

Texas PC46.02 snip said:

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is
licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt
holster;

Click to expand...

HPmatt said:

Just got back in town from mission trip in Guatemala and was talking to local PD about an armed robbery a block away.
I moved the conversation over to what are they doing re Officer training and policy re OC? PIO told me they are just starting process to gear up on it.
I told him I've got some sample policies from other States that already have OC (got them from Sudden Valley Gunner) and told him I'd be happy to forward them on to him as a starting point, along with my plans to see if Texas Senator Huffines office wants to be involved. Idea was well-received so I'll try that with other local PD too. Regarding the ugly gorilla in the room - Dallas PD - I'll try the same with them but expect they'll tell me to bug off.

Click to expand...

a suggestion...send the policies via certified mail to show the nice agencies actually received them. some OC'g citizen may, just may, benefit from having that information during a judicial event.

ipse