That was probably a bone thrown to the law enforcement community to get the CHL law passed in the first place. Someone probably said, "Ok, what if the law provides that an LEO may disarm the licensee if he feels that will make the situation safer?" And so it was written.txmatt wrote:Yeah, well I guess he reasonably believed it was necessary. And it sounds like a lot of DPS troopers reasonably believe it is necessary rather frequently. I don't see how that is any different from the law saying it's up to the officer; in fact, that's almost exactly what the law says. I wish there were a higher standard to meet for disarmament, but there isn't.While many people (including many police, according to reports) think they can disarm during every encounter, that's not really what the law says.
If an officer says he reasonably believed it was necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual, even if he "reasonably believes" it's necessary every time he encounters a CHL, I don't think I'd want to go to court and argue that I don't think he had any reason to believe any such thing.
This is one I think we should just leave alone. I think that over time, law enforcement has gotten, and will continue to get, more comfortable with the idea of citizens being armed. And that works out well for us.
