Negative Trooper Encounter

[kw5kw]

With MDC that have a TCIC/NCIC Terminal when you run someone by DL or Name/DOB you get a hit come back that the individual has a CHL. Running the TLETS terminal here at Lackland has opened my eyes to just how easy some information is to obtain but other information isnt.

Yeah, all the terminals work differently.

Our 'CAD' for instance automatically runs the DL, the '29' (stolen), and with only one ck in a ck box the '43' (cch), and yet one more check mark it will run the history that subject has had with the DPS. All with one entry and two ck marks.

Same for the '28'
]
Omninx you have to keep re-entering the info on different screens for each thing you need and it's not privy to DPS history.

[MustangGlocker]

I didn't see this brought up regarding the running of s/n, but what if someone (me and probable several others on here) has a Glock/Sig/HK, etc that originally came in .357SIG and a barrel swap took it to .40. Now the frame and the slide has a matching s/n, but the barrel has a different s/n(at least in the case of a Glock). I know it's 100% legal from a Fed standpoint but has it ever raised red flags with the DPS or other agencies on a road side stop or are they aware of the ability of barrel swaps and the different s/n that may be present. I drive on toll roads a lot and want to be prepared if/when I get stopped by DPS, or really any agency for that matter.

Thanks.

[tfrazier]

This OP's story is another example of the State turning a right into a controlled privilege and then using it to execute search and seizure against the will of law abiding citizens.

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.

Under current CHL laws regarding holder interactions with LEOs, we are at the mercy of the LEO, and all we can do is hope and pray he or she is one of the many good ones, not the rare anti-gun zealot or bad apple.

If you don't have a CHL and you have a weapon in your vehicle, you don't have to tell them, and you can refuse a search and force them to get a warrant.

CHL = less rights, not more rights. You gain a privilege to carry in return for surrender of certain rights.

The cottage industry that has sprung up around CHL training and testing will soon be at odds with grudging CHL holders like myself, who believe we are being forced to register with the state in order to exercise what should be a common right, not just a privilege for those who can afford to pay the state and instructor fees. I envision those who are making a good profit in the CHL training and testing industry lobbying against a non-licensed right to carry concealed.

We must continue to push for the freedom of all citizens to carry concealed without permits or knowledge of the state. I long for the day when I can cut up my CHL and toss it in the grill because I don't need it to legally carry anymore.

[CompVest]

Just a thought: If I am stopped and am outside of my car and the gun is in the car, what justification as to safety does the officer have for entering my vehicle to get my gun? I don't have access to it so the LEO should not fear for his/her safety.

Perhaps the best thing is to always have your gun on you at the start of the stop so there isn't any reason for the LEO to enter your vehicle. They would need to ask you to get it out for them.

[TrueFlog]

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."

[kw5kw]

(Steve you'll recognize some of this)

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.

Like Forest Gump said: "It's (a traffic stop in this case) like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get." Troopers don't know what they're gonna get either when they make that stop. Just like Trooper Burns who pulled over a car on April 29, 2008. Trooper James Scott Burns, 39, was shot and killed by a driver he had stopped near the intersection of FM 729 and FM 1969, northeast of Lake of the Pines. At approximately 7:57 pm, Marion County dispatchers received a call over the trooper's radio from a citizen stating that the trooper had been shot. … Trooper Burns was the 83rd DPS trooper to die in the line of duty. Now, I never want to get that call.

(Check out our website for the tribute to the fallen troops. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/memorial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; part of the above was taken from that site.)

Last week I got several calls from the general public that a trooper on the interstate was in a fight. I got him backup coming -- FAST; cause I didn't want one of the calls like I just posted. You know, not one of those callers offered to stop and help the Trooper; not one! There were weapons in the vehicle, and the guy very easily could have shot my troop. Thank the Good Lord above that he wasn't shot and killed. Winds up, stolen vehicle, stolen trailer carrying another stolen vehicle with a couple of stolen guns.

Fortunately, the guy had a record and didn't qualify for a CHL.

[nitrogen]

I would think twice before stop to help a trooper either. I'm sorry, but I don't need his trigger happy backup tazering me or worse thinking i'm the suspect.

Our LEO's here in texas have a better attitude than most, but I honestly don't know what I'd do.

[4t5]

...just because someone meets all of the legal requirements ...t just means that they have never been caught.

That's right, we are all just criminals waiting to get caught.

Troopers don't know what they're gonna get either when they make that stop.

Neither do we.

I still would like to know what made the Trooper "reasonably believe" that it was necessary to disarm the OP. If he didn't meet the requirements of the following statute, he broke the law.

GC 9411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the
officers official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the
officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

[TrueFlog]

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.

[kw5kw]

hmmm... just one more comment:

Who is John Gault?

[priusron]

There is a black DPS trooper that patrols that area. He issued a ticket to one of our fire trucks at the scene of a well blowout. He is stuck in that area and is not happy about it. He may be the one that stopped you. He also works highway 6 pretty heavy.

Ron

[tfrazier]

hmmm... just one more comment:

Who is John Gault?

U aren't part of John Galt, I think. But what does a fictional character from "Atlas Shrugged" have to do with this thread? Or am I being dense again?

[kw5kw]

Just like in the novel, we don’t at first understand the John Gault’s of the world, then just as the heroine begins to consider John Gault to be the Destroyer she comes to understand that he’s not the Destroyer but the one who has the sense to bring the world back to it’s senses; however she never actually joins him in his quest.

Most of us here are like the protagonist of the novel. We don’t understand the LEO’s, but we must accept them not as destroyer’s but as ones who actually bring order to our lives. While we may never actually join law enforcement in their jobs we come to realize that they are what separates the lawful from the lawless.

[mrvmax]

(Steve you'll recognize some of this)

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.

Like Forest Gump said: "It's (a traffic stop in this case) like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're going to get." Troopers don't know what they're gonna get either when they make that stop. Just like Trooper Burns who pulled over a car on April 29, 2008. Trooper James Scott Burns, 39, was shot and killed by a driver he had stopped near the intersection of FM 729 and FM 1969, northeast of Lake of the Pines. At approximately 7:57 pm, Marion County dispatchers received a call over the trooper's radio from a citizen stating that the trooper had been shot. … Trooper Burns was the 83rd DPS trooper to die in the line of duty. Now, I never want to get that call.

(Check out our website for the tribute to the fallen troops. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/memorial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; part of the above was taken from that site.)

Last week I got several calls from the general public that a trooper on the interstate was in a fight. I got him backup coming -- FAST; cause I didn't want one of the calls like I just posted. You know, not one of those callers offered to stop and help the Trooper; not one! There were weapons in the vehicle, and the guy very easily could have shot my troop. Thank the Good Lord above that he wasn't shot and killed. Winds up, stolen vehicle, stolen trailer carrying another stolen vehicle with a couple of stolen guns.

Fortunately, the guy had a record and didn't qualify for a CHL.

I would stop in a heartbeat and help out any law enforcement if need be. I would rather stop and get tasered or shot by mistake than know that I drove by an officer that was killed.

[mrvmax]

I would think twice before stop to help a trooper either. I'm sorry, but I don't need his trigger happy backup tazering me or worse thinking i'm the suspect.

Our LEO's here in texas have a better attitude than most, but I honestly don't know what I'd do.

I think when I pulled over and started pounding on the person they were fighting with they would know I was there to help them out.