TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

ir•re•gard•less ˌɪr ɪˈgɑrd lɪs - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard.
REGARDLESS.

________________________________________
[Origin: 1910–15; IR-2 (prob. after irrespective) + REGARDLESS ]

—Usage note IRREGARDLESS is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. IRREGARDLESS first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


I believe we all understood what Anygun was trying to convey.

Was that an English Dictionaary an American Dictionary or a Texas Dictionary.
While "irregardless" might not be concidered standard English in much of the world, This is Texas and a Texas forum and we make our own rules. As far as I can tell in this part of the world most folks accept Irregardless as standard Texspeak.

I hope I've been pretty clear to y'all.

It was this dictionary (as I posted):

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

We are on the same page Liberty. My post was to shaggydog, and my "point" was: There is indeed a word "irregardless", although it is often times misused.

The second point was: We all understood what anygun was trying to say...and "perfect" English (and sentence structure) is NOT required here in order to participate. I certainly hope no one is "grading" anything I write here. I will be the first to tell you...I possess something less than "a great command" of the English language.

shaggydog wrote:My analogy about Mr. Anygun's grammer WAS relative to the original post and was NOT simply a correction of his grammatical error.

Apparently my point about being confrontational rather than "polite" was well made.

Then again, you may have simply been "incorrect" on both accounts.



Shaggydog wrote:

I can adhere to the canons of education and admonish your use of a word that does not exist.

ir•re•gard•less ˌɪr ɪˈgɑrd lɪs - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard.
REGARDLESS.

________________________________________
[Origin: 1910–15; IR-2 (prob. after irrespective) + REGARDLESS ]

—Usage note IRREGARDLESS is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. IRREGARDLESS first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


I believe we all understood what Anygun was trying to convey.

txmatt wrote:Folks, the law is clear on this.

Very clear in fact. So if this isn't "working out" for Law Enforcement then perhaps measures should be taken to change it. I'm pretty sure this is still the best way to do things.

If you are not carrying there is no need to show the CHL. If a cop sees that I have a CHL and then gets angry at me for following the law, I will be making a complaint to his/her supervisor.

And I will be right behind you (maybe in front). This is the only way to stop someone from "getting hinky" about it.

It makes no sense once seeing that someone has a CHL to then assume that the person has suddenly chosen to start violating the law rather than the much more plausible explanation that that person is not carrying at the moment.

Exactly.

Also, given unlicensed car carry these days in Texas, if an officer wants to know whether there is a weapon in the vehicle he should be asking... a non-chl will not be informing an officer if carrying unless asked.

Another good point. Additionally, the officer must make contact with the person stopped in either case (CHL or not), that is point where he/she is vulnerable. This is unavoidable....and part of the job.

Rugrash-
Around here when I am carrying and inform a LEO of this after presenting my CHL then I get the response "good," not the other way around

.

Same thing here (at least to date). So apparently LEO are not so inclined to get "hinky" everywhere we encounter them.

As concerns "Officer Safety": I agree with the other person who posted that much emphasis is put on Officer Safety these days. That is good and proper to a point. I personally know of no one that doesn't want our LEO personnel to go home alive and unscathed at the end of the day. This is the object, the goal and the "ideal" of the training.

However, if police training/tactics/procedures/policies become such that in "application" they violate my rights (or the law), then something is terribly wrong!

I am not in favor of encouraging a "military" type police force.

So... if Officer Safety becomes the only thing important (at all costs and by any means) then we have a very serious problem.

I DO NOT put small value on the lives of LEO. I am more than "aware" that the job they do subjects them to the possibility of physical harm and death. I recognize too, that a certain number of officers are killed in the line of duty each year. This is regrettable, saddening, and unfortunate.

So, we are left with this quandary: At what point does Officer Safety training...begin to overshadow the rights of the citizenship or abrogate written law?

On the one hand, an Officer may lose his/her life. No one wants that.

On the other hand, countless thousands of men have died and shed their blood for the freedoms, liberties, and "rights" we enjoy as Americans. Not to mention...we are nation of "laws".

In this case, I don't know the answer. I will continue to extend every "courtesy" I can to LEO. I will be respectful to them and accommodating in every way it makes sense to do so. I expect the same from them.

Then, if at some point....the officer decides that his position of authority gives him the right to become angry,upset or hinky....that will be dealt with latter. And that's a promise.

legend wrote:I was told by a LEO (my stepmom actually) that the LEO can get a bit nervous if they find that you have a CHL and you didn't tell them up front. They might think that you are hiding something, or have some reason that you didn't want them to know that you might have a gun on you.

I always hand over my CHL with my license and just tell them whether or not I am carrying at that particular time (Which I usually am).

Hi Legend,

I hope you will not think I am "ragging" on LEO. I really do have great respect for those who do a tough job with professionalism and concern for their safety.

Perhaps after being LEO for a period of time, a person just becomes suspicious of everyone. Maybe that is the stark reality of the job, I don't know.

Although I know quite a few LEO and some are my friends, I admit that I can not speak to things from their perspective. I like to think that the "right" thing to do when stopping a CHL (or any other person) that has given you no reason to be "suspicious" is to simply not be!

There is really no need to "conjure up" thoughts of "possible" illegal acts that have not been precipitated by something demonstrable.

This is precisely why there remains an uneasiness between the public and LEO (in some cases).

If you've ever been on the receiving end of a "fishing expedition" then you know what I mean.

Thank you... for helping try to explain why LEO might think it important for us to always display our CHL. Maybe I'll grasp it someday.

Flint.

It's not the knowledge of the CHL that makes a stop stressful, it's the fact that the LEO doesn't know if the driver has a CHL or not and could be a gang banger bent on popping a cop that day. THAT is the stressful part.

Huh?
Unless I'm missing something here....the officer can only know if the person he/she has stopped has a CHL one of two ways.

1. He/She will run the plates, request the info (learn about the CHL) and then "hope" the person driving the vehicle is the license holder.

2. He/She will address the "unknown" person, request I.D. and other pertinent documentation (registration,proof of insurance), and if the person is carrying they will also display their CHL.

In either case....the officer must make "contact" to determine WHO the driver is. This already exposes them to the possibility of attack. It's part of the job.

That said, why would you NOT hand over your CHL with your DL?

Maybe you keep it in the glove compartment, maybe you don't even have it with you, and lastly...it isn't required if you're not carrying.

When your license is run, your CHL will show up.

So..........? Having a CHL is not a crime last time I checked.

The LEO will find out one way or another, so it's better to let him/her know up front that you are licensed than to surprise them and get a scolding.

Why is this a problem? Unless there is some stigma attached to having a CHL...who cares if the LEO finds out or doesn't. I am not hiding anything.

I really hope I don't run into an officer bent on giving me "a scolding" for doing what is lawful. I am extra courteous and respectful of LEO because I realize the risks they take, and most never give me any reason to do otherwise. But, the first time an officer decides to treat me like some pimple faced 15 yr. old and "scold me", it's going last all of about 2 seconds.

On the note of disarming a CHL holder, a lot of officers will tell you to leave it alone and everything will be fine.

All that I have met fall into this category, in fact none have even said anything about it all. I love those guys!

I've only personally heard of DPS consistently disarming during a stop. I think the reason behind that is they are trained to keep 100% control of the situation because their backup could be several miles away (if they have backup in the same county).

That amounts to "policy" and is very much outside the scope of the law. We've gone over this many times.
If CHL's do not cry "foul" when this happens (because of "policy") then we may expect it to become more and more common. Rarely is there a reason (per the law) to disarm.

Jason73 wrote:If I get pulled over I give the officer my dl and chl regardless of whether Im carrying or not. I know the law says I am not required to do so but I would rather the officer find out from me instead of finding out when he runs my dl for wants/warrants. I can think of no good reason not to inform the officer. Believe it or not those police officers are not the enemy, theyre the good guys.

Just my $.02

I do the same thing Jason and have advised my Daughter to do so as well....but not for the reason you cite. I think it is just good habit...and may save the officer a minute or two out of his/her day.

However, I wonder just what it is the officer is going to "discover" that makes it so urgent for you disclose it.

Answer: He/She will discover you are a mostly law abiding citizen with a CHL (A GOOD GUY)! Now theres a good reason to get their feathers all ruffled! (sarcasm off).

I guess I don't get it.

shaggydog wrote:

Longtooths wrote:Because he does not legally have to??? (just a guess)

It’s called “courtesy�. Why make a stressful situation any more so simply because “you legally can�. That is, at best, an immature philosophy.

I suppose my question would be: What is it about approaching a person that you KNOW has a CHL that makes it a "Stressful situation"?

Statistically, your about as likely to have a problem with this person as you are someones 80 yr. old grandmother.

We already have plenty of accounts of LEO disarming CHL's for what seemed to be no other reason than "they could". I believe this stems from a mindset that "some" officers get..that any gun that isn't their gun is bad to have around. This can grow into a general mistrust of every person they come in contact with.

I have to question if that is a healthy attitude...and how well that serves the public (most of whom are law abiding and respectful). CHL's are not the bad guys (normally). Most stops that start out professionally and courtesously...tend to stay that way. This applies to both sides.

Mike1951 wrote:Agreed that you don't have to provide the CHL if not carrying. But if I was just stopped, presumably for some violation, why would. I want to purposely aggravate the officer deciding whether to issue a citation? .

I don't view this as purposely aggravating the officer. The law is plain....and the officer should not take offense to a citizen obeying the law. Additionally, the officer should KNOW the law.

If you present the CHL and DL immediately, carrying or not, everything remains low key and if the violation wasn't too egregious, there is a very good chance that only a warning will be issued.

Maybe, some here have experienced otherwise.

If you are not carrying and do not present your CHL and he finds out when he runs your DL, his blood pressure goes up and he is now less friendly as he tries to determine why you didn't inform him. I would say the chances of a citation have gone up.

Why? Either I don't have the weapon with me (therefor not required to show CHL) or....I do have it with me and forgot. If the officer cares either way....he can simply ask me. This is communication, dialog, information gathering. Does it make LEO mad to communicate these days? If so...they need to be doing something else.

So stand your ground, guys. Don't hand over the CHL when you aren't required to and let us know how it goes.

It should go just like any other traffic stop. And if goes anything less than that (courteous/professional...both parties, and I can prove it had something to do with me having a CHL), I will be in the Chiefs office getting it sorted out before the officer can say "quit that".

We are not the bad guys.

wrinkles wrote:A couple of months ago a friend who has a CHL called to warn me of a DPS office in our area that had scolded him for not informing him he had a CHL permit when he was stopped of a speeding violation. The fiend said that he was stopped because he was going over the speed limit, he was not carrying so he didn't let the office know of his CHL status. The office checked his driver's license and came back very upset about not being told about the CHL. My fiend informed the officer that he was not carrying and that he was told by his instructor that he did not have to announce if he was not carrying. The office told my friend that the instructor was wrong and that he was required by law to let him know that he had a CHL any time he was stopped.

I was also told and have read that if I don't have a gun with me I don't have to let the office know that I have a CHL. Have I been misinformed?

No Sir, you are correct. You are NOT required (by law) to produce your CHL if you are not carrying (have with you) your weapon.

I promote the idea of always showing it anytime you are asked for I.D. by an LEO for just the reason you cite above (a scolding). I consider it a "courtesy" on my part.