Feel free to knock on my door anytime. I may answer, I may not.
If/when I do answer I will be armed (OWB in a holster at a min.) If the police or anyone else takes offense to that, they will be invited to leave my property.
No disrespect to any LEO, but my gun in my holster is no more dangerous than an LEOs gun in their holster. Someone else quoted an LEO encounter where the LEO said "Hey buddy, I have no problem with you sidearm...just don't show me yours and I won't show you mine."
If an LEO has approached me to gain information about a crime in which I have no involvement they will not treat me like a criminal by disarming me and expect me to answer any of their questions.
I'm happy to open my door and speak with a police officer if he thinks that the conversation may be helpful. If my .45 sitting securely in its holster on my hip makes him nervous, I'll be happy to close my door so he doesn't need to see it anymore.
If you are not suspected of a crime & I just needed information it's your property carry if you want. I worked a lot of rural areas as a LEO when we went to a persons property or their ranch we to get information we didn't get out of our vehicle until the land owner invited us to get out was just a way of showing respect for everyone involved. many times ranchers would be carrying on their property (snakes,2 legged snakes, (etc.) never once dawned on me to try & disarm them.
cw3van
Retired LEO
NRA Life Member, TSRA Life Member,
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
Based on the original post and Rothstein's comment which I quoted, what is the "cause" you mentioned? I didn't see any cause mentioned so my comment regarding CHL is relevant.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
No one is talking about with cause, but just out of idle curiosity, where do you see any authority for an officer to disarm ANYONE other than a CHL? I will grant that they can if they are making an arrest, but shy of that, I do not see the legal authority written anywhere.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
No one is talking about with cause, but just out of idle curiosity, where do you see any authority for an officer to disarm ANYONE other than a CHL? I will grant that they can if they are making an arrest, but shy of that, I do not see the legal authority written anywhere.
Peace officers can disarm anyone in a custodial situation. If they can require your presence then they can disarm. Now that is vague, and would have to be because it would be all but impossible to try and dictate every possible situation a police officer might find themselves in, but basically if you might be a suspect and need to speak with you or need your presence until they get more info to determine the actors then of course they can legally disarm someone.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
Based on the original post and Rothstein's comment which I quoted, what is the "cause" you mentioned? I didn't see any cause mentioned so my comment regarding CHL is relevant.
Why? The post never had anything to do with Chl, since it was open carry at home, until people started throwing other stuff into the discussion. And the "cause" would be the hypothetical reason the cop felt a need to disarm the homeowner. Saying he can't is absurd unless you specify why the office felt it was necessary.
srothstein wrote:It simply says the police officer may disarm a license holder. It places no restriction on the location or the authority by which the person is carrying. If it only applied to carrying under the authority of your CHL, then an officer could not disarm you in a traffic stop since you are not carrying under you CHL while inside your motor vehicle.
Not trying to be a smartalec but the bottom line seems to be, CHL holders lose some rights even though they gain others. Guess everything in life involves some form of a tradeoff.
In this case I don't see your CHL having anything to do with anything. You don't need a CHL to carry on your own property and police can disarm a Homeowner, with cause of course, regardless of their CHL status.
Based on the original post and Rothstein's comment which I quoted, what is the "cause" you mentioned? I didn't see any cause mentioned so my comment regarding CHL is relevant.
Why? The post never had anything to do with Chl, since it was open carry at home, until people started throwing other stuff into the discussion. And the "cause" would be the hypothetical reason the cop felt a need to disarm the homeowner. Saying he can't is absurd unless you specify why the office felt it was necessary.
You are adding things to the discussion that were not part of this discussion. There are more reasons a cop may knock on one's door than because the person is a suspect. I agree with toy if the person is a suspect in a crime but I don't agree with you if the homeowner is not a suspect.
More power to you if you plan to school Rothstein on how to do his job.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
cw3van wrote:If you are not suspected of a crime & I just needed information it's your property carry if you want. I worked a lot of rural areas as a LEO when we went to a persons property or their ranch we to get information we didn't get out of our vehicle until the land owner invited us to get out was just a way of showing respect for everyone involved. many times ranchers would be carrying on their property (snakes,2 legged snakes, (etc.) never once dawned on me to try & disarm them.
It sounds like you're a Texan at heart. Unfortunately, it seems there are a lot of people in Texas, in all kinds of jobs, who left their heart in San Francisco, have a New York state of mind, and act like Chicago is their kind of town.
srothstein wrote:No one is talking about with cause, but just out of idle curiosity, where do you see any authority for an officer to disarm ANYONE other than a CHL? I will grant that they can if they are making an arrest, but shy of that, I do not see the legal authority written anywhere.
Peace officers can disarm anyone in a custodial situation. If they can require your presence then they can disarm. Now that is vague, and would have to be because it would be all but impossible to try and dictate every possible situation a police officer might find themselves in, but basically if you might be a suspect and need to speak with you or need your presence until they get more info to determine the actors then of course they can legally disarm someone.
I disagree. I also disagree that they can require your presence, but that is a separate issue. We seem to agree that if the police are taking you into custody (as in placing you under arrest) that they can disarm you.
But if they are stopping you on the street to ask you a question, even if you are suspected of a crime, where is the legal authority to disarm you? We know they can legally disarm a CHL because that is contained in chapter 411 of the Government Code, but where does any law give the authority to a peace officer to disarm someone else?
And if there is such written law, why would one be needed to cover the case of a CHL?
You are adding things to the discussion that were not part of this discussion. There are more reasons a cop may knock on one's door than because the person is a suspect. I agree with toy if the person is a suspect in a crime but I don't agree with you if the homeowner is not a suspect.
More power to you if you plan to school Rothstein on how to do his job.
Huh? I'm adding things? I responded when someone brought chl into the discussion but I'm adding things? Look my point is and was if the officer has a reason he/she can disarm you. The home owner is not the one that gets to decide if the officers actions were legally justifiable or not. The homeowner doesn't have to be a "suspect" for the officer to not want an armed person in close proximity. The hypothetical situation gave no thought to what might be going thru the officers mind in the scenario and , from my point of view, that is the key to the question. If regardless of how someone else from a different perspective views a situation if an officer can articulate a plausible reason for disarming someone, even if they might of been wrong, then they are most likely justified if they do so. If an officer does disarm and is wrong then they open themselves up to possible repercussions for doing so. Now this may just be semantics but those actions are not wrong until they are ruled so by someone else. Since these are judgement calls until a court determines legality it's just putting what one person thinks is reasonable against what someone else believes reasonable.
I disagree. Until you can cite reliable information on which you base your opinion, I'll continue to disagree with your contention that a cop can knock on someone's door and then disarm them unless they are being investigated for having a part in the commission of a crime regardless whether they have a chl or not.
On the street or in public, the law specifically states a cop can do so if someone has a chl and if the officer believes it necessary for officer safety.
Please cite your source with a link.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
srothstein wrote:No one is talking about with cause, but just out of idle curiosity, where do you see any authority for an officer to disarm ANYONE other than a CHL? I will grant that they can if they are making an arrest, but shy of that, I do not see the legal authority written anywhere.
Peace officers can disarm anyone in a custodial situation. If they can require your presence then they can disarm. Now that is vague, and would have to be because it would be all but impossible to try and dictate every possible situation a police officer might find themselves in, but basically if you might be a suspect and need to speak with you or need your presence until they get more info to determine the actors then of course they can legally disarm someone.
I disagree. I also disagree that they can require your presence, but that is a separate issue. We seem to agree that if the police are taking you into custody (as in placing you under arrest) that they can disarm you.
But if they are stopping you on the street to ask you a question, even if you are suspected of a crime, where is the legal authority to disarm you? We know they can legally disarm a CHL because that is contained in chapter 411 of the Government Code, but where does any law give the authority to a peace officer to disarm someone else?
And if there is such written law, why would one be needed to cover the case of a CHL?
Well since they can police, pretty much anywhere, have the authority to disarm citizens if reasonable. (Prove it you say? It's there in the sentence. Reasonable. We have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, the courts have clearly come down on that authority being reasonable because cops do it all the time, when it is reasonable ). With giving out CHLs maybe they thought some would reject that authority however enshrined and try and use a chl as proof against a peace officers authority? (sarcasm)Well you can see by those here that would never happen (/sarcasm) but maybe they figured better safe than sorry.
The "reasonable" I referenced is in the portion of the law that pertains to concealed carry.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:I disagree. Until you can cite reliable information on which you base your opinion, I'll continue to disagree with your contention that a cop can knock on someone's door and then disarm them unless they are being investigated for having a part in the commission of a crime regardless whether they have a chl or not.
On the street or in public, the law specifically states a cop can do so if someone has a chl and if the officer believes it necessary for officer safety.
Please cite your source with a link.
You can believe the sky is pink if you want, I don't have to submit a link to show otherwise. If you then want to declare yourself the winner of the "Is the sky pink" debate go right ahead.
I will give you a quote from Terry.
Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.
the reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate
Now this is about Terry stops in particular but it's logic clearly is connected.
