TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:So a shirt lifting up or the wind blowing a shirt up and exposing a weapon is not a crime. Correct???

bizarrenormality wrote:

handog wrote:Yes, a vigilante was able to detect my gun but printing is NOT a misdemeanor. The flashing is relevant to the story because I believe that is when the LEO made the dicision to place me under arrest.

So if the wind blows your shirt up you would consider that intentionally failing to conceal? I give up.

Unless you're Marilyn Monroe, being exposed by the wind is not intentional, but it is a failure to conceal.

If someone saw your gun when you sat in an open back chair, think about how you can conceal better. If you flash your gun and have to adjust your clothes when you get out of your truck, think about how you can conceal better. If you print so bad a casual observer can guess you carry a gun, think about how you can conceal better. It's not required by the law, but it's smart to avoid recklessly or knowingly failing to conceal.

bayouhazard wrote:

handog wrote:I was using a Bianchi 100 Professional Holster "Engineered for today’s extraordinary deep concealment requirements"

Maybe you should ask for a refund. If the cops knew you were carrying without searching you then it wasn't even close to deep concealment. No matter what the marketing department says.

You also keep repeating the story about flashing your gun when getting out of your truck. That might be relevant if it was a normal traffic stop. However, from earlier accounts, the cops knew you had a handgun before you got out of your truck. It's the reason they stopped you.

austinrealtor wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.

Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.

And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.

To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?

Hoosier Daddy wrote:I can't find the original post. If the gun was in deep concealment, how did they know he had a gun?

gigag04 wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:I agree with that, not so sure I agree that LEO's are that informed on the law, I know too many that are not

How many exactly do you know? I would like name, rank, and department of these officers you know that are uninformed of CHL laws so we can do something about it. If you can - the date you last interacted with these officers would also be a plus.

A phone number would be helpful.