U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials temporarily seized a .50-caliber machine gun (above) in Detroit at the Fort Street Cargo Facility on May 13th because they say it wasn’t documented properly. The machine gun shipped from Canada, and was listed on an electronic manifest as “Cal Machine gun parts” and had no accompanying invoice. It was, in fact, an assembled .50-caliber machine gun manufactured by an Ohio company, according to USCBP. Following the seizure, CBP imposed a fine on the Canadian shipper for failing to satisfy federal importation procedures, and returned the gun to them for transport back out of the country.
Your Lockdown of the Day™ for today is a twofer, coming from Weekhawken and Union City, NJ. Two different schools were locked down nearly eight hours apart on Thursday, and authorities believe the lockdowns were caused by the same man. Around 8 a.m., a staff member at George Washington Elementary in Union City found a male intruder rummaging through a secretary’s office in the basement, which triggered a lockdown. The man fled when confronted, and police don’t know how he got into the building. Several hours later, security video at Daniel Webster Elementary in Weehawken showed an unknown man in the building carrying a backpack, so police locked down the school “out of an abundance of precaution” to conduct a search. Most of the children were in the gym for after school programs, so they were held there, and after about an hour, parents were allowed in to sign the kids out and take them home. The man was not found.
The Brady Campaign is dissatisfied at the pace with which New Jersey is pursuing the smart gun technology that’s been in the news so much lately. In an effort to spur action, the Brady Bunch and the Million Mom March have filed suit against the state of New Jersey and its Attorney General, saying the state has failed to comply with its own law on gun technology. The law says that the AG’s office is supposed to file reports on the availability of smart guns, and that not a single report has been filed since 2003. The screaming ninnies say the AG hasn’t done that, and demand that his office “obey the law and report on the availability of ‘smart’ handguns.” The AG’s office had no comment.
Several companies are running sales for Memorial Day weekend, notably Silencerco taking 25% off all merchandise (hats, shirts, stickers, patches, NOT silencers), CrossBreed Holsters taking 15% off your entire purchase with coupon code MD15, and Remora Holsters giving double coupons, one is 30% off your purchase plus a free single mag holder (code 30offmag), and the other is free shipping on orders over $40 (code SHIPFREE40).
An Arlington, Texas woman has filed a complaint with the Arlington PD because she says an officer unjustly seized her gun after she called them about seeing a car she thought was the one involved in a hit-and-run with her daughter earlier this month. Her daughter had been hit by a small red car with a white door, and the car she spotted had a recently painted door that appeared to have white under the red. She pulled in behind the car and called 911. When two men and a woman got into the car to leave, she said she didn’t confront them, but only held her hand up and asked them to “hold on.” When an officer arrived on scene and requested her driver’s license and insurance, she also showed him her Concealed Handgun License at the same time as required by law. At that point, he grabbed her purse and removed her gun from it, saying she was being a vigilante and that she shouldn’t even have the gun. The officer told her she could pick up the gun at the station at a later date. She did so the following Monday, minus the ammunition, because department policy doesn’t allow a firearm and ammunition to be released from property at the same time. Dissatisfied with the answer she got from the officer’s supervisor, she has filed a complaint with Internal Affairs.
For the weekend, a long-form video from Hickok45, discussing the SVT-40, a semi-auto rifle that shoots the 7.62x54R cartridge, most recognizably used in the Mosin-Nagant.
Matt, this is incorrect, Texas is not a “must notify” state. It hasn’t been since 2007. Please update this as it’s factually incorrect.
She wasn’t “required” by law to notify the ammo thief….. I mean Arlington PD officer.
Actually Texas is still a must notify state, they simply removed the penalty for not notifying.
As noted by others below, and the statute posted by BillC, it is still the law that she was supposed to show him her CHL when he asked for her driver’s license. Request = demand, and he requested her ID. Nobody is saying that you have to volunteer the info upon initial contact, but according to law, if an LEO requests/asks for/demands ID, the CHL is supposed to be displayed alongside it. Even if the penalty for not doing so has been removed, the action is still written in the law.
It is a must notify state, Jared.
Bill, what section of law? I can’t prove a negative, it was repealed in 2007.
Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY
If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about
the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a
peace officer demands that the license holder display
identification, the license holder shall display both the
license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license
holder’s handgun license.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec.
10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999,
76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730),
Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.
Not saying I agree with it, but it is the law. Go find this and read the section after, about the “legal” disarming.
Did you read it, it says on “demand” by a magistrate or peace officer, not upon contact, but on “demand”.
Again, that changed on 9/1/2007.
Bill is correct. If a cop asks for your DL, you hand them your DL and CHL. If you can’t see that written there in black and white, contact a lawyer or your CHL instructor. You need to go back to class.
Jesus Christ, you are thick.
” When an officer arrived on scene and requested her driver’s license and insurance, she also showed him her Concealed Handgun License at the same time as required by law.”
Not thick, just educated.
Just read the law. It says on demand, not upon contact like it used to before 2007.
You are quoting what Matt incorrectly wrote in the article. The actual law you cited proves my point.
Instead of having a hissy fit, try reading the law, you may actually learn something.
I’m pretty sure that he is correct, the article states that the CPL wasn’t one of the 2 items he asked her to submit. It’s pretty clear. Going by the letter of the law and what is reported, that is. WA is the same. If he would have asked for he CPL then, yes, by law she would need to produce it. He didn’t.
Jared, from the article.
“The only time my gun was mentioned was when the officer asked me for my drivers license and insurance. I have to show my CHL [identification] at that particular point.”
That’s the law, dude. When a cop in Texas asks for your ID and you are carrying, you MUST hand over your CHL and notify that you are currently carrying, which she did.
I explained 411.205 twice, if you refuse to read it and/or what I said then I can’t help you. But please read it because you are spreading BAD INFORMATION. I don’t care what the article said, I care what the LAW says and the word “demand” does not equal must notify preemptively.
..peace officer demands that the LICENSE HOLDER DISPLAY IDENTIFICATION, the license holder shall display BOTH the license holder’s driver’s license/identification certificate issued by the department AND the license holder’s handgun license.
Jared, no one said “preemptively”. The law says if you are carrying and an officer asks for ID, you must hand over your CHL with your ID and notify you are carrying.
Not only is Bill C correct, but the entire applicable law is posted right here to read. When the officer requests your ID, you are required to present your ID and notify him you are a CHL holder and armed, which is exactly what my courses have taught three different times.
Take off your blinders and read the friggin’ law you keep quoting, Bill.
TEXAS IS NO LONGER A MUST-NOTIFY STATE.
That has been the case since 2007, you thickheaded assclown.
For someone willing to throw around pejoratives, you’re not terribly observant yourself there, bucko.
Nobody is talking about “must notify” which is better described as “duty to inform.” Duty to inform is virtually always in regard to “first contact” with an officer, that is, when they contact you in an official capacity, you are supposed to immediately tell them you have a carry permit. The issue in this case is a completely different one, that of the requirement that when asked for an ID by an officer, you are required to ALSO provide your CHL, if you have one.
Two scenarios, to illustrate the point. These are both in Texas, which does not have a “duty to inform” per se, but does require it with a demand for ID, per 411.205.
Scenario 1: Bob has a CHL. Officer addresses Bob, asks if he witnessed the incident. Bob didn’t, the officer thanks him for his time, and Bob goes on his way.
Scenario 2: Bob has a CHL. Officer addresses Bob, asks if he witnessed the incident. Bob did, and provides some information. The officer then asks (which in legalese is a demand) for Bob’s ID, because if Bob is a witness, the officer wants to have accurate information in case he needs to contact Bob again. Upon providing his ID, Bob also provides his CHL, because it is required by law. There may be no penalty attached for not doing so, but that doesn’t remove the requirement, legally, and so being a law-abiding citizen, Bob does what the law requires.
Scenario 2 is the one we’re talking about here.
I think y’all mean “duty to inform”
I really don’t see the controversy here. From the article, the woman said the officer requested identification. Ok, that’s believable enough. Police always ask for identification right off the bat. That “request”, as she calls it, constitutes a demand on the officer’s part, since it’s the officer requesting the I.D. as part of his official duties. Shall we take a quick detour through failure to I.D.? Ok.
An individual must identify themselves to police if they are arrested or if they are a witness to a crime. She’s a witness, so she has an duty to identify herself in general.
As to the CHL, in Texas, a CHL holder in possession of a firearm must notify the officer, as was stated in the section of the law above. True, the criminal penalty (suspension of the CHL) for failing to provide the CHL has been removed. However, cops don’t like surprises, so it’s probably not a good idea to keep that little tidbit to yourself when they already have your driver’s license. After all, when they run you on their computer for wants/warrants, they’re going to see you have a CHL, anyway. That’s a surprise.
They’ll come back and check you for weapons and disarm you, which they have the authority to do.
Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.
So to sum up: Yes, she had to I.D. herself. Yes, she had to provide her CHL, too. No, there isn’t a penalty for failing to provide the CHL. Yes, the officer can disarm her once he finds out she’s armed.
What happens next? Well, she should have gotten her sidearm back when they encounter was over, provided she’s not a threat and hasn’t committed some other offense under the statute. However, failing to provide the CHL is still an offense. So even though there’s no suspension or penalty for the failure to provide the CHL, she did violate that part of the subchapter, so the officer isn’t obligated to return the firearm to her.
In practice, this is never an issue. Provide your CHL and DBAD. Otherwise, you’re vulnerable to the officer being a D and not returning your firearm.
The only problem with this otherwise excellent analysis is that the article clearly said that she DID provide her CHL when asked for ID, and the peace officer confiscated the gun beyond the specific encounter with him anyway.
I think that’s the point of the article – the cop was being a dick.
I’m not real sure about that. She was apparently interfering with strangers because she suspected them of a crime. The sensible thing to do would have been to copy the license number and report her suspicions to the police in regard to the hit-and-run. Instead, she blocked the car in and refused to let the people leave, an idiotic and dangerous thing to do, and she was armed. I back the cop. And the way the article read, she could go retrieve her ammo later.
Man. I’d love an SVT-40.
Oh hell yeah.
I really enjoyed the video. I had never heard of the SVT 38 or SVT 40 rifles, so I learned something today. I own a Moisen, and know about the Draginov, but not the rifle that came in between them.
Ruger has 20% off on orders over $100
It seems like Remora is always running big sales. Either they are pulling the old mark way up and have a sale shtick or they desperate to move inventory. I tried a couple of their holsters and didn’t like them…way too thick.
Ditto. Tried one, and it will be the last one.
To each their own. I prefer my aliengear hybrid holster but I wear my remora tuckable when I want to wear a dress shirt. They’re a little thick and definately more uncomfortable than my hybrid, but they conceal deeper than my other holsters with very little tradeoff.
SVT-40. A poor mans dragunov. Nice rifle.
Nothing poor about them, heard Canadians can get them brand new – straight from Russia.
There was some talls here in Norway about legalizing the SVT, SKS and M1 Garand for hunting. Nothing came of it if I remember correctly. Wouldn’t be a problem, just expensive since you need to send in a review sample and pay for the review (about 5k NOK).
What the dickens is a “review sample”?
Guy from V,
Thank you for actually reading the law. Some people are incapable of doing so and result to name calling because they aren’t intelligent enough to read and they spread bad information.
This is why you don’t notify if not requires by law, some cops will steal your property, like this thief did.
Jared, I’m not trying to get into a pissing match or a contest. However, I think you may be referring to the traveling thing that was corrected in 2007/2008 in Texas. If you do NOT have a CHL and you have a firearm in the car, such as a pistol, you are NOT required to tell the police even if they ask for ID. However, if you DO HAVE a CHL, you DO HAVE to tell the officer you are packing when the ask for ID.
Bill, the TSRA briefly covered this here
The law has no penalty and it was purposely left vague with no penalty. What is a law with zero penalty? Having a CHL does not make one forfeit any other rights. Legislative intent matters here, the law used to be must notify and then it was changed. If 411.205 was to be read strictly then an officer could demand ID (contrary to Hibel and Kohlender v Lawson) even on your own property. Even if the law had a penalty, it violates equal protection as the only element of a crime would be possessing a license.
This is why I say TX is no longer must notify, there is no penalty whatsoever, and the law is as vague as can be. It would be like if a state said, now that you have a drivers license, you forfeit the ability to walk in public.
So let’s say, I had a TX CHL and a cop asked me for ID (assuming I didn’t have a gun on me), I would be under no legal obligation to show ID and or a CHL, it runs afoul of Kolender and Hibel. A license is only permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. No one forfeits any rights by having special permission via license for anything… Especially when there is zero penalty whatsoever in the law.
411.205 could most likely never be challenged because you would have no standing as you would have suffered no consequence, since there is no penalty… Kind of a catch 22.
It’s possible a prosecutor could make and argument for someone walking down the street with a concealed handgun (since a license is required) but even then, that would only be limited to activity that is illegal unless licensed.
In summary, legislative intent is clear that 411.205 would only apply to someone who is carrying a handgun, in a place and manner, where a license to do so is required.
Which was, in fact, the case. So we are now all agreed.
But – but – but – doesn’t the red thing on the end of the machine gun barrel mean it’s a toy? 😉
Thread protector. Judging by the notching next to it, that looks like one of the newer fixed headspace quick change barrel versions.
I call BS, jsallison! Of COURSE it’s a toy! A brand spanking new really fun toy. They should have saved themselves the paperwork and just shipped it to me!
I got a shiver reading the machine gun story.
On my last job, we were an “importer of record” for some very specific lumber from a very specific region in Canada.
The tax/import paperwork was a friggen nightmare. It seemed like Canada, the U.S., and the train companies were always looking for mistakes so they could fine you. Not, ” hey, you made a mistake, can you fax the corrected version”…
It was “haha, we caught you, pay up or your lumber disappears”.
Brady Bunch are a bunch…of idiots.Smart guns are dumb cause you know where that is going…Gov t control of guns and in the future only the gov t will have the smart guns and everyone else will have been disarmed.Can you say HEIL HITLER!
Texas lady needs to get that officer reprimanded or bettet yet fired.4th amendment violati
on..illegal search and siezure and 2nd Amendment violation
50 cal, bitchen gun!!
That weapon seizure was beyond belief! Totally out of order, the copper shouldn’t have got away with that. Alas, it is the way of the world that the upholders of the law appear to be above it.
An SVT-40? Nice, a semi-auto Moist Nugget. Cool.
The End Times have arrived – the NYDN is running a positive gun-related story:
Texas mom high on pot, PCP tried to drown kids before saved by armed son: report
I need to run to the window to see if pigs are flying too.
But wait, there’s more!
Gardner’s son, identified as Jydesmon Gardner, shortly after fled the scene while wanted for an outstanding warrant.
Because he was in possession of a gun, he could also now face a charge as a felon in possession of a firearm.
OK, never mind. But I think their heads are spinning now.
I think if someone had given me that name, I’d be a felon. OTOH, this incident would not have happened, ‘cuz soon as I GOT me a gun, ida kilt dat beach named me dat.
I missed out on an SVT-40, and it’s still kicking me to this day.
Captured by the Germans in WWII, and then captured by an American vet and brought home.
Living in an adjoining city and working in Arlington it’s common knowledge that Arlington is notoriously antigun. They couldn’t stop CHL holders from coming to City Hall (I think City Hall) so they moved a magistrate court there to stop carrying. Kind of like Williamson County except with college educated officers.
The other day there was some (mostly idle) talk about divisions within the gun owning and 2a supporting populace and even some warnings about an implosion in our ranks. Today we learn that the Brady Campaign and MMM have filed suit against the state of New Jersey because it’s too lax in it’s gun laws.
I fully support this move and suggest also that all anti-liberty groups immediately sue NY and CA, and each other for not being anti-liberty enough.
On a slightly more serious note, I wonder what the rub really is in this case. Perhaps the Brady Bunch and MMM are acting as a stalking horse to give the NJ AG and others cover to proceed with their mission vis a vie smart guns (which is in turn a cover for a blanket firearms ban, like Russian nesting dolls are they layers of their intrigue). In any event, unless they know something I don’t, I’m surprised they would take this path since evidence (ie Heller) suggests that the NJ smart gun only law will be found unconstitutional if it’s ever implemented. Perhaps the fix is in, perhaps they see different writing on the wall than I do, perhaps they are desperate to remain relevant and generate donations, perhaps they’re just as foolish as ever. I guess we’ll have to wait to find out.
I think it’s more of an attempt to gain relevance and ca$h.
Wow, talk about bad police work. So, the message to law abiding citizens is avoid the Arlington Texas police, that you are completely on your own, for any contact with them will lead to an adverse action by their officers. This kind of stuff teaches people that nothing good will ever come from an encounter with Arlington police. Ever wonder why in big liberal cities people will simply walk away when they witness a crime…this is it.