Not necessarily mutually exclusive, but still possibly one or the other.ATDM wrote:Which one?Keith B wrote:Well, one out of two ain't bad.ATDM wrote:2. CHL holders are law abiding and SANE citizens...:
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Cops and CHL holders”
- Wed Aug 14, 2013 6:38 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cops and CHL holders
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6995
Re: Cops and CHL holders
- Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:41 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cops and CHL holders
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6995
Re: Cops and CHL holders
glock27 wrote:jimlongley wrote:Of all of the LEOs I have had occasion to talk about such things with, including 2 different Citizens' Police Academies and numerous ride alongs, only a couple have ever expressed what I would consider a "negative attitude" toward CHLs in general.
That one was the School Resource Officer at the school my wife works at. When I pointed out the non-compliant 30.06 signs posted on the edge of school property, he talked over the top of me and insisted that he and the scool district would arrest and prosecute any CHL found to be carrying anywhere on school property.
It was his attitude and statements that encouraged me to contact the school district about it. The school district basically stated the same things, almost word for word, leading me to believe that he was merely parroting a school policy directive.
I understand that the school district seems to have changed their tune since then, although the signs remain in place.
The other was when I was a TSA screener at Love Field, when I pointed out that: A) the signs were just flat the wrong ones; and B) that Love, being government property could not be effectively posted, they came close to threatening to arrest me then and there, stating that the signs were enforceable, and that they would, and that if I thought different I was being an obstructionist.
I see both of those circumstances as anti-CHL, and have continued to carry.
The signs are still up at Love.
Why would you point out an invalid sign? It gives us the chance to legally carry there. The fact that you brought it up dismisses your ability to disregard an invalid sign because your pretty much asking them to give you a verbal notice. What does telling them benefit you? It only bring their ignorance to a level where they are aware the sign is wrong and then can change it and then you've just put all chl holders attendance out the window for that place of business
Been discussed here more times than I care to count. Besides the fact that I do not believe in the "chance to legally carry there" philosophy, in both circumstances above I did not point out that the sign was invalid until after I had determined that the intended to enforce it. Then pointing out that the signs, in the case of the school district, were the wrong size and rendered ineffective by law, and in the case of the airport, just totally wrong (30.05) and rendered ineffective by law, obtained the answers that they intended to enforce and prosecute, and the school district's answer (above the LEO who, in each case said they were following orders from above) was that their lawyers said the law didn't apply because they were not a government entity, and the airport authority just said that what they said was the rules and that was that.
I will continue to point out invalid signage to anyone that posts it, and collect the answers (Fort Worth Zoo says it's a school, with no further comment on the location of their posting) because as I see it, they are anti-gun and don't want my business, and they should be made to put up the big ugly sign.
Once again
and you are not going to change my mind.- Wed Aug 14, 2013 7:35 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Cops and CHL holders
- Replies: 35
- Views: 6995
Re: Cops and CHL holders
Of all of the LEOs I have had occasion to talk about such things with, including 2 different Citizens' Police Academies and numerous ride alongs, only a couple have ever expressed what I would consider a "negative attitude" toward CHLs in general.
That one was the School Resource Officer at the school my wife works at. When I pointed out the non-compliant 30.06 signs posted on the edge of school property, he talked over the top of me and insisted that he and the scool district would arrest and prosecute any CHL found to be carrying anywhere on school property.
It was his attitude and statements that encouraged me to contact the school district about it. The school district basically stated the same things, almost word for word, leading me to believe that he was merely parroting a school policy directive.
I understand that the school district seems to have changed their tune since then, although the signs remain in place.
The other was when I was a TSA screener at Love Field, when I pointed out that: A) the signs were just flat the wrong ones; and B) that Love, being government property could not be effectively posted, they came close to threatening to arrest me then and there, stating that the signs were enforceable, and that they would, and that if I thought different I was being an obstructionist.
I see both of those circumstances as anti-CHL, and have continued to carry.
The signs are still up at Love.
That one was the School Resource Officer at the school my wife works at. When I pointed out the non-compliant 30.06 signs posted on the edge of school property, he talked over the top of me and insisted that he and the scool district would arrest and prosecute any CHL found to be carrying anywhere on school property.
It was his attitude and statements that encouraged me to contact the school district about it. The school district basically stated the same things, almost word for word, leading me to believe that he was merely parroting a school policy directive.
I understand that the school district seems to have changed their tune since then, although the signs remain in place.
The other was when I was a TSA screener at Love Field, when I pointed out that: A) the signs were just flat the wrong ones; and B) that Love, being government property could not be effectively posted, they came close to threatening to arrest me then and there, stating that the signs were enforceable, and that they would, and that if I thought different I was being an obstructionist.
I see both of those circumstances as anti-CHL, and have continued to carry.
The signs are still up at Love.