TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

WTR wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Jusme wrote:

WTR wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I thought you weren't required to carry id? if that's the case, this makes no sense. I haven't seen the Senate version of this, has anyone else?

You are only required to provide valid ID if you are under arrest.

Even then you are not required to carry or show a government issued ID. You are required to truthfully identify. In Texas it's called failure to identify, and can be added to any charge, if it is prove that you provided false identity. When I was a LEO, the county where I worked would add the six months on to whatever sentence you were given.

May you remain silent?

You can if you are not arrested.

Can you remain silent if you ARE arrested or do they just give you that Miranda warning for show?

Since identifying yourself is not considered self incrimination, Miranda i.e. the 5th Amendment does not apply.

Recently a federal judge in San Francisco blocked Trump's action to strip funds from sanctuary cities. He side that the president didn't have the constitutional authority to determine funding, that was held by congress alone.

I'm remembering that Obama threatened to strip funds from states that didn't allow transgenders to use whatever bathroom they wanted. Only a liberal can think that one is unconstitutional and one is not based on the judges logic.

[quote="Jusme...
Since identifying yourself is not considered self incrimination, Miranda i.e. the 5th Amendment does not apply.[/quote]

Ah yes, I see. It's a class C...but you'll presumably be "taking the ride" for whatever you were under arrest for anyway.

SewTexas wrote:I thought you weren't required to carry id? if that's the case, this makes no sense. I haven't seen the Senate version of this, has anyone else?

Any activity which requires a licence, driving a car, carrying CCW, etc. You're required to carry ID.
Walking down the street, riding a bicycle, standing on your own property, etc, non CCW, no ID required.

Anything short of arrest you don't have to say a word, consent to any conversation, or ID yourself.
This includes LE at your front door, just because they're there you don't have to answer the door or speak to them (consent to a conversation).

It's worth noting the hypocrisy of CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas):

Last session, they were opposed to the language prohibiting LEOs from demanding to see the license of people who open carry. They were successful in getting Republicans to strip that language out.

This session, CLEAT is opposed to allowing LEOs to ask about immigration status (to be exact, they don't want state law to prohibit police and sheriff's departments from prohibiting their LEOs from asking about immigration status).

ninjabread wrote:Maybe they can share a cell with the people posting 30.06 signs on government property.

This. Haven't we always been told that we can't jail officials or punish them financially for breaking the fines for signs law for some reason, since they are doing the job in their official capacity or something similar? Seems like that just went out the window.

locke_n_load wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Maybe they can share a cell with the people posting 30.06 signs on government property.

This. Haven't we always been told that we can't jail officials or punish them financially for breaking the fines for signs law for some reason, since they are doing the job in their official capacity or something similar? Seems like that just went out the window.

No because posting the signs is not a crime, and there is no provision in the law for a civil penalty on individual
officials.

CLEAT, from what I read, leans heavily left...

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Abraham wrote:CLEAT, from what I read, leans heavily left.

Да, товарищ

MojaveMan wrote:Be careful what you wish for. It wasn't very long ago that I was VERY happy to see sheriffs standing up to the feds and saying "I will NOT enforce any federal law which violates my constituent's 2nd amendment rights, and will defend their right to keep and bear arms".
I don't think you can cherry pick here - either you think its your sheriff's job to be involved in enforcing federal law, or you don't. I, for one, prefer to keep them separate.

That was because those laws violated the Constitution. Neither the Federal nor the Texas Constitution protects illegal immigrants from due process. The illegals themselves can push the 5th Amendment as far as not telling on themselves, but once their immigration status discovered by any other means, I don't see how they could claim any other sort of violation stemming from its use.

KD5NRH wrote:

MojaveMan wrote:Be careful what you wish for. It wasn't very long ago that I was VERY happy to see sheriffs standing up to the feds and saying "I will NOT enforce any federal law which violates my constituent's 2nd amendment rights, and will defend their right to keep and bear arms".
I don't think you can cherry pick here - either you think its your sheriff's job to be involved in enforcing federal law, or you don't. I, for one, prefer to keep them separate.

That was because those laws violated the Constitution. Neither the Federal nor the Texas Constitution protects illegal immigrants from due process. The illegals themselves can push the 5th Amendment as far as not telling on themselves, but once their immigration status discovered by any other means, I don't see how they could claim any other sort of violation stemming from its use.

Oh didn't you hear, the Constitution confers due process rights on aliens abroad and disallows the Executive any discretion in issuance of visas to foreign nationals. It overrides the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1958. The 9th Circus has said as much in upholding TRO's from Federal judges in Hawaii and Washington. It's all right there next to the Sodomy Clause and the Abortion amendment, a few paragraphs down from the Privacy Article.

ScottDLS wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

ninjabread wrote:Maybe they can share a cell with the people posting 30.06 signs on government property.

This. Haven't we always been told that we can't jail officials or punish them financially for breaking the fines for signs law for some reason, since they are doing the job in their official capacity or something similar? Seems like that just went out the window.

No because posting the signs is not a crime, and there is no provision in the law for a civil penalty on individual
officials.

Neither is a sanctuary city a crime. Yet.

ninjabread wrote:Neither is a sanctuary city a crime. Yet.

How is openly and intentionally aiding people in avoiding penalties for a Federal crime not a crime?

KD5NRH wrote:How is openly and intentionally aiding people in avoiding penalties for a Federal crime not a crime?

That's a great question that I would love to hear Sessions and Trump answer.

ningabread,

Are you in favor of S.C.?