private university police - show them chl?

[paxton25]

Paxton, speaking for I believe most members, we do our best here to understand and comply the law. We pride ourselves with our DPS verified statistics of being law abiding citizens. It is also true that some of us agree with your insistence that the manner in which we carry is an infringement on the 2A but we patiently wait and work the legislative process. We typically do not openly brag about how we will not comply with the law. We avoid confrontation when we are in a position where law enforcement requests us to ID ourselves. The discussions here are full of valuable information. You insist that you will not comply with laws you deem unconstitutional that have not been tested in the courts.

Keep us posted if and when you take your stand and let us know how it works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

but see that's the thing, some people are talking as if I am making a statement or a protest or drawing a line in the sand. I am not, I am just expressing what I choose to do. I also would refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle if asked, just my personal decision, not to be difficult, not to make a stand but because it is my right and I choose to. I avoid confrontation too, that's why this is easy for me. Not really any confrontation. It's more of an experiment let's say. Luckily I have only had one bad experience on the very few times I have had the occasion to interact with a LEO in an official capacity in my entire life. 99% of the LEOs I talk to are upstanding individuals genuinely concerned about everyone's safety. I am not doing it just to go out and poke my thumb in anyone's eye. I just wanted people that may not have know that there actually wasn't any criminal penalty for it. That's pretty much it. To some degree this has been tested in the courts, I believe the law that says you are to present your CHL when asked to identify goes against the ruling in Brown v. Texas. Look it up, it is pretty eye opening. I used to think that you could just be stopped on the street for no reason and you had to produce ID. It seems ridiculous to me that with no CHL you don't have to ID to a LEO unless you are being arrested but with a CHL you have to produce even if you are just detained. Again, why would I be afforded LESS protections for going through the trouble of getting a CHL?

On this board it is general policy to state and follow the applicable laws. Espousing non-legal behavior is generally discouraged, even if there is no penalty.
The only exceptions appear to be speeding, and illegal overconsumption of good queso.

I did state the law, including the fact that there is no penalty that's part of the law which was specifically removed by the lege. This was germane to the topic and very relevant. Apparently the law makers don't have an issue with it because they specifically removed a penalty that existed. When you look at court rulings I believe the penalty was removed to prevent a constitutional challenge. An unconstitutional law with no enforcement provisions is not something I concern myself with. Abe Lincoln said "Laws without enforcement are just good advice". My decision is to not follow the advice, what others decide to do with knowledge of the facts is up to them. I don't see why discussing the law and the facts surrounding it should be suppressed as you suggest.

[b322da]

... On this board it is general policy to state and follow the applicable laws. Espousing non-legal behavior is generally discouraged, even if there is no penalty....

Jim