Police not happy about relazation of TX CHL law

[dac1842]

The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons. Their intent on carryng them on a daily basis is silent. Though back in their day that was common place due primarily to lack of enforcement. Over the years some courts have held that the right to carry is contained within the Second Amendment and hence you have states that have open carry per their respective legistaures. The open carry has not won much legislative support in Texas. Right wrong or indifferent in Texas no one questions the right to own a weapon. The state grants certain individuals who meet the criteria the privilege to carry a weapon concealed. Some on here think that is a right not privilege. Until the State grants it as a right, it is a privilege, just like driving.

The word bear is not about ownership its actually about carry. see: http://define.com/bear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The courts are wrong they have rewritten the law to be what they want it to be rather than as as it was written. The contitution is clear.. The reasoning and judgements are whats rather muddy.

To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge. The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them. Like any other profession 98 percent of them are hard working, tax paying Americans like you and I.

At a certain point when an agency keeps resisting us. they change from being our allies to being our enemys. ITs Kind of a French thing.


The problem is the membership keeps putting the same people in. Where are the voices in the department speaking against them.

To say that you would not stop to assist an officer who was in trouble is troubling. You have the right to say it, but if that is your feelings, then why should any citizen stop to help you if you are in trouble?

Lots of things go through our mind when we see certain situations. What is the risk? how badly does that officer need our help, Do I know that oficer? Is he likely a good guy or bad guy. Is he ATF? DEA? or a department I respect?
...

There are many on this board that by the comments they have posted on this thread and others that seem to think that since they have a CHL they should be exempt from tickets, treated with more respect and are equal in power to the police. The only thing you are exempt from is being arrested for UCW as long as you have it properly concealed, you will get the respect you show, and we as CHL holders are no where close to being the equal to a police officer.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

Are we not already in trouble when the Departments and their Representatives march up to Austin every 2 years and fight the honest good citizen on their rights to protect themselves. If the Agencies would stop campaigning for things like ticketing back seat drivers and working against CHLers they would improve relationships tremendously... How about if they just keep their chiefs and union Reps at home during the legislative session. How about a union representative speak about CHLers with a modicum of respect? How about a chief stating publicly he won't charge cancer patients with small amounts of drugs. How about Union speaking out against ticketing folks in the back seats? Are the departments about oppression or freedom..
I believe we as CHL holders as taxpayers are the superiors of the LEOs aren't we?[/quote]

Liberty,
I agree we should be able to carry unrestricted except for carrying in bars. Other than that I support unrestricted carry.
We should not judge the entire HPD over the comments of a misguided union rep. I work in a very unionized industry, just because he represents them in a union capacity does not mean he represents the views of the guys on the street.
The officer out in the patrol car has an obligation to enforce the law. He may not agree with the way it is written but his job is to enforce it. IF the law says it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt in the back seat,then yes he is obligated to enforce it. That does not mean he is obligated to write a ticket, enforcement can happen in many ways. The method of enforcement is the officers discretion.

Does selective enforcement exist? We both know it does, always has and always will. I dont see us as in trouble. We have come a long long ways since the days of possessing a firearm outside your home was illegal. Instead of confronting the Union or our elected officials, why not engage them in constructive dialog. Granted it does not always work. We are seeing right now in D.C that the views of the people are being totally ignored for the views of a powerful few. Confrontation never works.

The next step is between now and the next legislature is for us as a law abiding community (CHL HOLDERS) to unite and and start to let the state reps and senators that voted down our bills, or quashed them in committee playing policitcal games, that our intent is to oust them from office. If all the CHL holders that live in the districts of the reps and senators who torpedoed the bills we backed were to call their reps and senators now, the tone would change in some. During the legisltature is the wrong time to start that process when opposing special interests are bombarding them too. Hit them now that they are home and in their districts. Dont be quiet about, be loud, respectful and show up in numbers at their offices and let them know as a community our intent is make them unemployed.

[Purplehood]

Does selective enforcement exist? We both know it does, always has and always will. I dont see us as in trouble. We have come a long long ways since the days of possessing a firearm outside your home was illegal. Instead of confronting the Union or our elected officials, why not engage them in constructive dialog. Granted it does not always work. We are seeing right now in D.C that the views of the people are being totally ignored for the views of a powerful few. Confrontation never works.

The next step is between now and the next legislature is for us as a law abiding community (CHL HOLDERS) to unite and and start to let the state reps and senators that voted down our bills, or quashed them in committee playing policitcal games, that our intent is to oust them from office. If all the CHL holders that live in the districts of the reps and senators who torpedoed the bills we backed were to call their reps and senators now, the tone would change in some. During the legisltature is the wrong time to start that process when opposing special interests are bombarding them too. Hit them now that they are home and in their districts. Dont be quiet about, be loud, respectful and show up in numbers at their offices and let them know as a community our intent is make them unemployed.

I disagree with the underlined statement, and contend that it contradicts what is underlined.

I believe that we should make sure that our votes count today and everyday, and be loud, informed and militant the rest of the time.

[rm9792]

Android,
No offense taken sir. Very good and legitimate questions.
Prior to CHL laws being in place it was illegal in Texas to possess a firearm outside of your home unless you were
1- Traveling- At the time this meant crossing at least 3 county lines and being gone overnight.
2- Had in your possession items of high value. This was seen by the courts as over $1000 in cash or 10,000 in other items such as diamonds.
3- Were a peace officer
4- Were a commissioned security guard traveling directly to or from your place of employment.

There may have been other exceptions but I cannot recall them at this time.

Most officers depending on the time of day, place, who was carrying and attitude of the suspect would not take exception. The times I charged someone with that they were usually DWI, resisted arrest on another charge or displaying the weapon in a threatening manner. I cant recall any time I ever charged someone with UCW as a stand alone charge.

For instance I stopped nurses or others who worked shift work, were coming home at 2 and 3 am and if they were cooperative the fact they had a weapon was not ever a big deal.

You are wrong on no. 1 for sure. Show me where the number of counties was listed. There were exceptions for transport as well.

[Liberty]

Liberty,
I agree we should be able to carry unrestricted except for carrying in bars. Other than that I support unrestricted carry.
We should not judge the entire HPD over the comments of a misguided union rep. I work in a very unionized industry, just because he represents them in a union capacity does not mean he represents the views of the guys on the street.
The officer out in the patrol car has an obligation to enforce the law. He may not agree with the way it is written but his job is to enforce it. IF the law says it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt in the back seat,then yes he is obligated to enforce it. That does not mean he is obligated to write a ticket, enforcement can happen in many ways. The method of enforcement is the officers discretion.

Does selective enforcement exist? We both know it does, always has and always will. I dont see us as in trouble. We have come a long long ways since the days of possessing a firearm outside your home was illegal. Instead of confronting the Union or our elected officials, why not engage them in constructive dialog. Granted it does not always work. We are seeing right now in D.C that the views of the people are being totally ignored for the views of a powerful few. Confrontation never works.

The next step is between now and the next legislature is for us as a law abiding community (CHL HOLDERS) to unite and and start to let the state reps and senators that voted down our bills, or quashed them in committee playing policitcal games, that our intent is to oust them from office. If all the CHL holders that live in the districts of the reps and senators who torpedoed the bills we backed were to call their reps and senators now, the tone would change in some. During the legisltature is the wrong time to start that process when opposing special interests are bombarding them too. Hit them now that they are home and in their districts. Dont be quiet about, be loud, respectful and show up in numbers at their offices and let them know as a community our intent is make them unemployed.

Just a couple of notes. My frustration isn't that the a union leader speaks against us, its that we never hear the membership give an opposing voice. Its not just that the officers give tickets to those in the back seats, It is the fact that the Chiefs and departments were lobbying to make it ticketable. Where are the voices that speak for personal liberties in the departments. I also undestand that the men in blue are mostly very good people. I suppose so weren't the North Vietnamese soldiers and the Red chinese who stormed the Korean penninsilla .. We all get to choose our sides.. I don't hear much about the unions in Chambers County or even Galveston, But the Houston Harris county police reps are their in force!! Doesn't the membership or the rank and file have a voice? if they are for us perhaps they should be heard buy us the taxpaying gun toters.

I do beg to differ with your last statement, confrontation is the only thing that works, at least in war and politics. I haven't had much experience or training in other confrontations.

With apologies to Mr. Cotton, I understand I've said enough , maybe to much on the topic.
Thanks for the civil dialog on a topic we both feel strongly about... This civility is what makes this board so unique/
"Nuff said.

Ray ..

[03Lightningrocks]

Android,
No offense taken sir. Very good and legitimate questions.
Prior to CHL laws being in place it was illegal in Texas to possess a firearm outside of your home unless you were
1- Traveling- At the time this meant crossing at least 3 county lines and being gone overnight.
2- Had in your possession items of high value. This was seen by the courts as over $1000 in cash or 10,000 in other items such as diamonds.
3- Were a peace officer
4- Were a commissioned security guard traveling directly to or from your place of employment.

There may have been other exceptions but I cannot recall them at this time.

Most officers depending on the time of day, place, who was carrying and attitude of the suspect would not take exception. The times I charged someone with that they were usually DWI, resisted arrest on another charge or displaying the weapon in a threatening manner. I cant recall any time I ever charged someone with UCW as a stand alone charge.

For instance I stopped nurses or others who worked shift work, were coming home at 2 and 3 am and if they were cooperative the fact they had a weapon was not ever a big deal.

You are wrong on no. 1 for sure. Show me where the number of counties was listed. There were exceptions for transport as well.

I don't know if he is right or wrong but this is a perfect example of how confusing that law was. It seems different departments had rules of their own to determine the traveling exemption. I had a "situation" in Dallas and the officers told me their was no rules on how many counties I traversed, just the fact that I was obviously on my way home from the deer lease was enough to qualify under the traveling exemption. If you look further back, Kieth stated that you could not have a loaded gun up front with you. I have also heard different versions of that one too.

Thank god they decided to clear it up with the new car carry rules. .

Back to the original topic for a minute. the very thought of a senior law enforcement officer suggesting that his officers will "throw down" on anyone with a firearm sickens me. Even with that out there, i would still intervene if I witnessed an officer getting the tar kicked out of him...or her. I would also intervene if I saw one citizen beating heck out of another. Intervene does not mean I would pull out my gun and start blastin people. I might just stop and say..."Hey fellers...what up?". I might do the ole school yard trick and scream the teacher is coming...or in this case i would say cop. If I had to, I would open a can of whoop butt as a very last resort. But yes, I would help the cop if it looked like they needed help.

[dac1842]

In my last response in this thread. The issue prior to CHL was when could you carry? Traveling was an exception. Like in the traveling issue that arose in the first round of MPA, the same loose interpretations on the MPA exiisted prior to any CHL laws. No one defined traveling. So the general consensous among judges was 3 county lines. It was not written in any law, just a standard many courts back in the day went by.
If we remember when the MPA was first passed our legislators again failed to define traveling, and there were few rogue DA's that once again fell back on the 3 county standard, though it was never defined.

I really believe we need to put a bunch of non-lawyer types in Austin and D.C. If I was a law maker the law would look something like this.

If you aint an ex-con, dont beat the ol lady or the munchkins, you can carry your weapon any where you darn well please except in a bar.
Note: Native Texans are expected to carry, you cant call yourself a Native Texan and not have gun nearby,, just aint right.

Deadly Force- If they need killin, kill em.

[Harley rider 55]

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

Support your local motorcycle club. That's who I call if I'm in trouble.

[dac1842]

Harley Rider,
As a biker (99%er) myself it depends on the club! Certain outlaw clubs and I have a history. Something about putting their members in jail many years ago that didnt go over real well.

[snorri]

To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge.

I have a lot of respect for those who uphold and obey the highest law of the land. I have zero respect and little use for those who are willing to violate the Constitution for thirty pieces of silver.

The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them.

Saying they're just following orders doesn't cut it with me and it didn't work at the Nuremberg trials either.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

Instead of your preferences, I call my friends neighbors instead. They come much quicker, they won't try to disarm me, and seeing my gun won't make them soil their trousers.