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.
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
+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
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.
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
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?