Mike D and LEO's .. question..

[MeatEater]

It falls under the plain view doctrine. Once an officer has legal authority to stop you and then to inspect your weapon to make sure it complies with your CHL requirements then the serial number is in plain view and he has legal authority to run it.

[BIG IRON]

Well you never know.....





Plain view..........

I guess they can run the # on anything they want. I got pulled over for speeding (which I wasn't) and they checked the registeration on my 4 wheeler.

[systemnt]

How did the officer get the gun? The running of the serial numbers does not constitute a search. Its how he obtained the gun.

he has the absolute right to disarm you.
doesn't really say he can do investigation because he disarmed you though...
especially if there was no probable cause to constitute an investigation... having a chl is not a reason..
as far as I read it anyway... which is why I'm confused on the subject...

and even more confused with Keegan's commentary thrown into the mix...

[systemnt]

It falls under the plain view doctrine. Once an officer has legal authority to stop you and then to inspect your weapon to make sure it complies with your CHL requirements then the serial number is in plain view and he has legal authority to run it.

ahhh.. that actually makes sense....
kind of a run-around but still makes sense..
thanks

crap..keegan made sense...

[jcso139]

he has the absolute right to disarm you.
doesn't really say he can do investigation because he disarmed you though...
especially if there was no probable cause to constitute an investigation... having a chl is not a reason..
as far as I read it anyway... which is why I'm confused on the subject...

and even more confused with Keegan's commentary thrown into the mix...

I undertand what your saying. Again, running serial numbers does not constitue a search. So he can run the numbers.

[Liberty06]

Also, if you are not CHL and carrying under the MPA, you don't have to disclose that you have a weapon in the vehicle.

I always thought this was weird, no license and no training and you don't have to disclose. CHL license with training and qualification and you must disclose.

Doesn't make sense to me. Of course it doesn't make sense to me why I need a license for something that is my constitutional right; but I could be wrong.

Sorry for veering off topic a little bit.

[gatorgar]

I've had my serial #'s run a few times. I do not have a chl, due to time restraints, and lack of instructors in my area. However depending on the situation, I will notify an officer if there is a weapon in my vehicle rather than wait for him to ask. They have always asked me if it was alright to run the #'s before they did it though.

[DorothyNotKeegan]

Well you never know.....





Plain view..........

he has the absolute right to disarm you.
doesn't really say he can do investigation because he disarmed you though...
especially if there was no probable cause to constitute an investigation... having a chl is not a reason..
as far as I read it anyway... which is why I'm confused on the subject...

and even more confused with Keegan's commentary thrown into the mix...

Not confusing....

ahhh.. that actually makes sense....
kind of a run-around but still makes sense..
thanks

crap..keegan made sense...

Sucks don't it!

[Loneaggie]

I always thought this was weird, no license and no training and you don't have to disclose. CHL license with training and qualification and you must disclose.

Law has been updated on this. My opinion is the best policy is to give it to them anyway. When they run your DL it's going to come up anyway. I rather volunteer it, than them wondering why I didn't tell them.

[FWTX]

Law has been updated on this. My opinion is the best policy is to give it to them anyway. When they run your DL it's going to come up anyway. I rather volunteer it, than them wondering why I didn't tell them.

law has been updated? What's the new/updated law? Just curious, didn't know it had been updated.

[Mike D]

Law has been updated on this. My opinion is the best policy is to give it to them anyway. When they run your DL it's going to come up anyway. I rather volunteer it, than them wondering why I didn't tell them.

Just for clarification, you are still required to disclose if you are CHL and carrying only the penalty for not doing so was removed, not the requirement.


Sent from my iPhone

[systemnt]

law has been updated? What's the new/updated law? Just curious, didn't know it had been updated.

mike beat me to it..and is the answer I would hold higher than my own anyway ..
In my opinion it's just good common sense to let the officer know.

[stan]

If the officer is legally in possession of your firearm (and in this case, he is), he can also legally check it for stolen. Officers have no legal requirement to "turn their heads" when legally postured in the presence of any activity.

[TexMax]

Just for clarification, you are still required to disclose if you are CHL and carrying only the penalty for not doing so was removed, not the requirement.


Sent from my iPhone

If there is no penalty. How is there a requirement.

[systemnt]

If there is no penalty. How is there a requirement.

I read this as, any LEO can get your CHL revoked at their discretion, -..and as such.. I will do what , within reason, they request of me regarding it.
Asking that it be disclosed to them isn't that big a deal to me.