TexasCHLforum.com

kw5kw wrote:Remember this is a "Shall Issue" license, which means if you meet all the requirements then the state MUST issue the license. Now, just because someone meets all of the legal requirements set forth, that doesn't mean that they are 'squeaky' clean. It just means that they have never been caught. So, keep that small fact in mind when I say that a person who is all tattooed up, might have a tad bit of alcohol on his breath gets pulled over, and that person has a CHL; dime to a donut that person gets their weapon ran.

Congratulations, you've just abolished the 4th amendment. Regardless of whether an individual has a CHL, and regardless of whether he has a criminal history, he still has protections under the law. No officer has the authority to search or seize his gun or any other property without due process. I don't care if he's a skinhead with swastika tattoos who was released from prison last week and drives a car with an "Abort Obama" bumpersticker. He may be a terrible person, but unless there's probable cause of criminal activity or intent, you can't touch him.

tfrazier wrote:I HATE having to have a CHL to legally carry a weapon, because it automatically bypasses my protection from unlawful search and seizure. If you have a CHL and your weapon is in your vehicle, they get to enter and search for it whether you agree or not.

Is this true? What, specifically, gives them this authority? I assume you're basing that on the assumption that a search is a necessary part of disarming us. Does a LEO have the right to disarm a non-CHL who's carrying under the MPA? What about a CHL'er who's carrying under MPA - does the authority to disarm always apply, or only when carrying under the CHL? (I'm thinking of a scenario similar to parking lots with 30.06's. CHL vs. MPA, which takes precedence?)

If the officer asks if we have a gun with us, we can refuse to answer, right? Would that help protect us from a search? He has the authority to disarm us for his safety, but he can't be concerned for his safety without specific knowledge of a firearm. The law allows him to disarm us once he has determined we're a threat, but it doesn't allow him to search us as part of making that determination. I've yet to be pulled over while carrying, but stories like this one (and others) make me think I should answer any questions about a gun with "It's a secret to everybody", "I prefer not to talk about that", or "Not without my lawyer."