TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle,

I'm on your side with this, but I wonder if you'd get to finish verbalizing your 4th amendment speech before he started to arrest you or shine yer noggin with a baton and haul you in?

Plus, I'm a little confused by " "Sir, you do not have my permission to perform any action related to a lawful seizure of my weapon unless you can show probable cause for its seizure.

Did you mean to post "lawful" and if you did, I guess I simply don't understand why?

Color me slow...

I think TS has been unmasked - but, he had us going for awhile...

My guess: he'll reappear under another name.

Maybe then, I won't be as gullible...

I'm thinking the word "imposter"...

"I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks."

And with that in mind, we're all, and I mean ALL, regarded with gross skepticism.

Sort of a first cousin of: Treat everyone as a law breaker and let god sort em out.

Sounds like a classic case of burn out...

Texas Sheepdog makes an excellent point.

Some LEO organizations can arbitrarily decide to disarm the legally armed because they can / will as a matter of routine / and then chortle about it. (a big police wave of the fingers while pressing thumb against the nose in the direction of you uppity CHL types...)

Confirms the notion that some (by no means all) police disagree about law abiding citizens being armed and this policy is one of the ways they can demonstrate it, while reasserting their need to control us subjects, er, citizens.

The implementation of this policy has a no nonsense police state ring about it.

You - CITIZEN - you vill obey!

Show me your papers now Schweinhund!

So.........color me confused. I've read the thread and my head hurts.

Is DPS stating that if they make a traffic stop on a CHLer, they WILL without question, disarm him and check his handgun SN to make certain it's not stolen, as a matter of routine?

Yes?

No?

Maybe?