TexasCHLforum.com

Needs to be NITB........."NIPPED in the Bud"!

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

No. There is no requirement to inform you are carrying. Not even for MPA.

There is a requirement to display a gun license under some circumstances, but I'm not sure what authority Texas has to compel someone to display a license issued by another state. Even before the law changed to drop the penalty, Texas would have had a tough time enforcing the statutory penalty in 411.187 on a Utah licensee.

emcee rib wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

No. There is no requirement to inform you are carrying. Not even for MPA.

There is a requirement to display a gun license under some circumstances, but I'm not sure what authority Texas has to compel someone to display a license issued by another state. Even before the law changed to drop the penalty, Texas would have had a tough time enforcing the statutory penalty in 411.187 on a Utah licensee.

Assuming you have a gun in the car or on you, but a OK license .and you get stopped.

"Sir do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?"

You can answer;
1:YES (then it becomes much the same as if you had handed him a TX CHL)
2: NO (a lie, and you get much more delayed if they find it, or otherwise come to know you have it)
3: Refuse to answer (a right for sure, but one that will cause you further delay)
4: Respond to the question with an answer that is not related to the question ( which will be noted and will cause you further delay )

A better solution would be to fix the issue, not come up with creative ways to maybe get around it.

E.Marquez wrote:

emcee rib wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

No. There is no requirement to inform you are carrying. Not even for MPA.

There is a requirement to display a gun license under some circumstances, but I'm not sure what authority Texas has to compel someone to display a license issued by another state. Even before the law changed to drop the penalty, Texas would have had a tough time enforcing the statutory penalty in 411.187 on a Utah licensee.

Assuming you have a gun in the car or on you, but a OK license .and you get stopped.

"Sir do you have any weapons on you or in the vehicle?"

You can answer;
1:YES (then it becomes much the same as if you had handed him a TX CHL)
2: NO (a lie, and you get much more delayed if they find it, or otherwise come to know you have it)
3: Refuse to answer (a right for sure, but one that will cause you further delay)
4: Respond to the question with an answer that is not related to the question ( which will be noted and will cause you further delay )

A better solution would be to fix the issue, not come up with creative ways to maybe get around it.

Jim

Fixing the issue requires firing or disciplining the cops who go fishing and run serial numbers on concealed guns that were NOT IN PLAIN VIEW until the cop demanded the citizen reveal it. If you have the power to fix the problem cops, go and do that, and then I will listen to your advice. Until then, I have to use the methods available to me to work around the problems.

emcee rib wrote:Fixing the issue requires firing or disciplining the cops who go fishing and run serial numbers on concealed guns that were NOT IN PLAIN VIEW until the cop demanded the citizen reveal it. If you have the power to fix the problem cops, go and do that, and then I will listen to your advice. Until then, I have to use the methods available to me to work around the problems.

You miss the point entirely.

Best of luck with your "Solution"

If playing games with technicalities in the law is your thing, I suggest a more favorable opponent than an LEO that has stopped you.

After all - isn't the basic underlying principle of the thread that a few unconfirmed LEOs are playing games with technicalities in the law?

Instead of coming up with master plans to get back at these evil troopers, how about both sides play nice until they have a reason not to.

I have yet to see confirmation that this serial number thing is an actual policy.

And I've been a member here since the early days, and I have heard of a scarce few instances of being disarmed.

emcee rib wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

emcee rib wrote:All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

No. There is no requirement to inform you are carrying. Not even for MPA.

There is a requirement to display a gun license under some circumstances, but I'm not sure what authority Texas has to compel someone to display a license issued by another state. Even before the law changed to drop the penalty, Texas would have had a tough time enforcing the statutory penalty in 411.187 on a Utah licensee.

A permit holder must provide his permit to a law enforcement officer when asked for ID. Sec.411.205.

I doubt I have ever had an official conversation with a LEO who didn't ask for ID. Sometimes I have ID, sometimes I don't.

gigag04 wrote:If playing games with technicalities in the law is your thing, I suggest a more favorable opponent than an LEO that has stopped you.

The most astute advice I have heard yet about using one's imagination to get around his conception of the law. You would think that people with imaginations like that would keep it to themselves, for at least three good reasons. (1) it is irresponsible to give advice on this forum, which, if tried by another, might cost him or her time, hassle, money and possible mental (or physical?) pain and anguish, (2) It has been noted again and again here on the forum that CHL holders have a fine relative record of complying with the law, and irresponsible advice here endangers the LEOs conception of that record, and (3) if one follows his own irresponsible advice his intention to do so has been laid out before the whole world here in advance.

I have used the expression "sea lawyers," or "barracks lawyers," before, and I will use it again here.

Jim

You lost me. Are we back on topic yet about using some pretense to seize and record the serial number of a handgun carried by a citizen who passed a more strict background check than cops in many agencies?

gringo pistolero wrote:You lost me. Maybe it was all the off topic hijacks but I'm not sure what irresponsible advice we're talking about. Is it some condescending dillweed supporting Obama or are we back on the topic of jerks using some pretense to seize and record the serial number of a handgun carried by a citizen who passed a more strict background check than cops in many agencies?

This
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 85#p738385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Followed by others along the way with user responses to emcee rib "solution"

To each his own... I just do not see emcee rib's "solution" as a responsible, useful or recommended course of action.

Fixed. Thanks.

gringo pistolero wrote:You lost me.

That does not surprise me at all. That comment will probably "lose you" also.

Suggest that I am a "dillweed" and I am entitled to respond in similar fashion, but I cannot lower myself that far. I reckon there is no longer any problem here on the forum with calling other members indecent names.

Jim

gringo pistolero wrote:You might want to fix your signature to comply with forum rules before you criticize others. Just saying.

Thanks for the reminder... even if it was an attempt to be derogatory on a unrelated subject..which could have been done in a friendly way via PM or in forum. In any case I accept the rebuke and have fixed the signature.. My being out of the country and largely off the forum when the change took effect is no excuse.

Care to say something useful in response to the discussion at hand?

57Coastie wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:You lost me.

That does not surprise me at all. That comment will probably "lose you" also.

Yes it did. I lack the skill to sort through your haystack of condescension to find some meaningful point.