TexasCHLforum.com

baseballguy2001 wrote:I think what Jbarn is saying is, he used to be in Law Enforcement, is now a CHL instructor, and is often out in the world with non law enforcement types. (the folks) Who didn't have to study the law, court cases, and such for their profession. Some, now have the audacity to question the motives of some who get paid from our taxes. That being said, if the government can check the serials of our weapons, shouldn't some other government stooge check over your laptop and and other personal items to keep you safe?

It is not the questioning of motives, it is people completely not understanding the law.

I oppose LEO's checking serials on firearms as a matter of routine. My, clearly poor choice, analogy was would we accept all of our property being checked for stolen everytime we are stopped?

The answer is no. Lots of folks are CHL holders, more and more in Texas. Most people, all over the country, don't think carrying a concealed weapon is necessary, not to mention safe. They think the government will ALWAYS protect them. We know better. In the same vein, most people think giving up a little freedom means more security. We know that leads down another path. No, we shouldn't have to take our shoes off to get on a flight. No, our personal property should NOT be gone through, any time a government agent wants to. No, our phone calls, emails, web traffic should be our business, and not an any way, shape, or form the governments business. The sad part is, we are long past that. When you get stopped, if asked, hand it over. Even if you bought it new, it's not that much trouble right?

I agree with that!

Jbarn:
Please define "BTDT".
That's a new 1 on me.

TIA/SIA

The sad part is, we are long past that. When you get stopped, if asked, hand it over. Even if you bought it new, it's not that much trouble right?

Maybe some of you younger folks don't know this, but this rationale sounds eerily like what otherwise law abiding Germans said when the SA sought out Jews during Kristallnacht, The Night of The Broken Glass. Not that this is in any way implies any kind of comparison, (such is not my purpose), but the logic seems to be if the "authorities" ask, just do it. Dear friends, this government belongs to "we the People" not the "authorities". There may be coming a day when we have to make some very difficult choices or submit to tyranny. Didn't Patrick Henry say, "Give me liberty, or give me death"?

baseballguy2001 wrote:Some, now have the audacity to question the motives of some who get paid from our taxes.

Audacity? The highest duty of a free man and a citizen is to question the motives of public servants.

The law is written to allow for police to seize your weapon for "officer safety". Once it is seized they can run a serial number check. There is no statute allowing for police to seize your GPS, laptop, iPad, phone, or DVD player, so they cannot run serial numbers on those items unless they are seized and inventoried with the vehilce.

I don't like the law, but there is no way the legislature will remove the provesion from the law and not allow officers to disarm CHL holders, remember, it is for "officer safety". The only way to remidy the situation is to not allow the running of serial numbers from temporarialy seized firearms, but I doubt that will ever come to pass. I believe there was a poll on this site and the vast majority of LE interaction resulted in the CHL holder being told to keep the weapon and not touch it, and only a few that were disarmed, and probably none of those had the serial numbers searched.

anygunanywhere wrote:Running firearm serial numbers during a traffic stop for a moving violation is a violation of the 4th amendment no matter how you justify it. You can't make something right just buy saying it is. Doing this is just the same as the new york city stop and frisk.

Anygunanywhere

Sure you can. Gotta follow policy. If it's policy it has to be alright. At least that's what we keep hearing: policy was followed so no one violated any law. Policy is the highest law of the land now. You probably thought it was that silly old Constitution.

Jaguar wrote:The law is written to allow for police to seize your weapon for "officer safety". Once it is seized they can run a serial number check. There is no statute allowing for police to seize your GPS, laptop, iPad, phone, or DVD player, so they cannot run serial numbers on those items unless they are seized and inventoried with the vehilce.

I don't like the law, but there is no way the legislature will remove the provesion from the law and not allow officers to disarm CHL holders, remember, it is for "officer safety". The only way to remidy the situation is to not allow the running of serial numbers from temporarialy seized firearms, but I doubt that will ever come to pass. I believe there was a poll on this site and the vast majority of LE interaction resulted in the CHL holder being told to keep the weapon and not touch it, and only a few that were disarmed, and probably none of those had the serial numbers searched.

I don't believe the law permits siezure for a serial check, only temporary seizure for officer safety.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jaguar wrote:The law is written to allow for police to seize your weapon for "officer safety". Once it is seized they can run a serial number check. There is no statute allowing for police to seize your GPS, laptop, iPad, phone, or DVD player, so they cannot run serial numbers on those items unless they are seized and inventoried with the vehilce.

I don't like the law, but there is no way the legislature will remove the provesion from the law and not allow officers to disarm CHL holders, remember, it is for "officer safety". The only way to remidy the situation is to not allow the running of serial numbers from temporarialy seized firearms, but I doubt that will ever come to pass. I believe there was a poll on this site and the vast majority of LE interaction resulted in the CHL holder being told to keep the weapon and not touch it, and only a few that were disarmed, and probably none of those had the serial numbers searched.

I don't believe the law permits siezure for a serial check, only temporary seizure for officer safety.

Once disarmed it doesn't say what can or cannot happen. At that point it seems to become officer discretion or department policy. A law would be nice, but I will not hold my breath.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:Jbarn:
Please define "BTDT".
That's a new 1 on me.

TIA/SIA

Been there - done that

jbarn wrote: Right. We would jump up and down, and rightfully so, if your GPS device, laptop, camera, etc was run for stolen on every traffic stop. Why is our firearm different? I have no disagreement with disclosing I carry, or surrendering the handgun if an officer wants to. But running serials is just wrong, IMO.

Look I don't agree with the serial number check either.
On the cell phone issue, if officers get it in their hands incident or as part of a search and it's unlocked, courts have ruled it fair game.
Since the "safety" of the officer is the reason for disarming you, I can see the natural extension of the court's current latitude until a ruling changes it..

Unless the LEO has reasonable suspicion to believe that the firearm may be stolen then they should not run the serial numbers.

Carzan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Carzan wrote:Put a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out immediately. However, put a frog into a pot of room temp water and slowly heat it up and he will sit there until its too late and the heat has overcome him.

The government is taking the second approach.

And it sounds like your science classes in school were a bit different than mine. Either that or, do your parents know what was really going on out in their garage?

Actually, I don't even know if it's true. I heard that somewhere and it makes a really good analogy for this discussion. I bet the frog actually jumps out in each scenario.

I had a girl coming over for supper one time when I was in school. I salted up some water, tossed a couple of lobsters in it and went off to shower and shave. When I came back to check, the pot was empty. I found one when I saw a canister moving on the cabinet. The other was a little more difficult but he (she?) had worked into the space between the cabinet and fridge. So yes, starting with cool water and start increasing the heat, they'll leave. But you toss their happy selves back in when the water is boiling, they're not going anywhere.

My experience with cooking frogs is limited in that I have never cooked an intact and extant frog. But if I did I s'pect the experience might be similar.
FWIW, the boiling frog metaphor is just another iteration of the non sequitor fallacy.

Maybe a metaphor likening it to cancer, by the time you see the symptoms it may be too late.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Carzan wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Carzan wrote:Put a frog into a pot of boiling water he will jump out immediately. However, put a frog into a pot of room temp water and slowly heat it up and he will sit there until its too late and the heat has overcome him.

The government is taking the second approach.

And it sounds like your science classes in school were a bit different than mine. Either that or, do your parents know what was really going on out in their garage?

Actually, I don't even know if it's true. I heard that somewhere and it makes a really good analogy for this discussion. I bet the frog actually jumps out in each scenario.

I had a girl coming over for supper one time when I was in school. I salted up some water, tossed a couple of lobsters in it and went off to shower and shave. When I came back to check, the pot was empty. I found one when I saw a canister moving on the cabinet. The other was a little more difficult but he (she?) had worked into the space between the cabinet and fridge. So yes, starting with cool water and start increasing the heat, they'll leave. But you toss their happy selves back in when the water is boiling, they're not going anywhere.

My experience with cooking frogs is limited in that I have never cooked an intact and extant frog. But if I did I s'pect the experience might be similar.
FWIW, the boiling frog metaphor is just another iteration of the non sequitor fallacy.

Maybe a metaphor likening it to cancer, by the time you see the symptoms it may be too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
The boiling frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually.[1] According to contemporary biologists the premise of the story is not literally true; a frog submerged and gradually heated will jump out.[2][3] However, some 19th-century experiments suggested that the underlying premise is true, provided the heating is sufficiently gradual.[4][5]

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jaguar wrote:The law is written to allow for police to seize your weapon for "officer safety". Once it is seized they can run a serial number check. There is no statute allowing for police to seize your GPS, laptop, iPad, phone, or DVD player, so they cannot run serial numbers on those items unless they are seized and inventoried with the vehilce.
...

I don't believe the law permits siezure for a serial check, only temporary seizure for officer safety.

When he takes the gun, the serial number is in plain sight. An officer can investigate anything in plain sight.

The more interesting question is if you are asked to surrender your firearm, so (wearing a paddle holster) you slide your entire holstered handgun off your belt and hand the holstered firearm to the officer. At that point, the serial number is not in plain sight. Theoretically, if the officer removed the handgun from the holster and ran the serial number he would be conducting an illegal search.
Practically? There is really no practical remedy. Even someone who wanted to sue would have to start with stating what are the damages.

In theory,I've thought the same thing. However, in reality, how many officers will allow us to remove our own gun to give it to them?