Video Interview of LEO's about CHL's

[Landman]

I apologize if this has been posted before but I just ran across it. It's an interesting video of interviews with California and Arizona law enforcement officers regarding concealed handgun permits. The one comment I found incredible was the LA County Sheriff would only give a permit to someone "after" they have been a victim of a violent crime.

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2007 ... ry_06.html

[NcongruNt]

Wow, and he thinks that 500 permits is reasonable... for Los Angeles?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Guys, it's a different world in the "discretionary" states. I spent the first 50 years of my lifde in RI, the last 8 of them with a hard won CHL.

Essentially, you're treated like a second class citizen. The issuing authority has to agree that you have a "good enough" reason to be issued a CHL. Simply wanting to protect yourself from a chance encounter with one of the jurisdictions violent criminals is never, by itself, adequate. "After all, if we issued you one for that reason, we'd have to issue to everybody.", they say. (Well, "Duh!")

Of course, that doesn't stop them from issuing to retired cops, movie stars, the super rich, or the armed bodyguards who they employ.

Because you see, they are NOT "just anybody". THEY are SOMEBODY, and you are not.

And the people put up with it because they have been conditioned to regard their personal safety, and their right to protect it, in an almost child-like fashion. ("What? Fight back against criminals? That's a job for the police, not for me." To which anyone with a shred of common sense would say, "Not if they are attacking you RIGHT NOW, and there are no police around, you moron!")

I might hire someone to cut my grass, but protecting the lives of my loved ones and I is just a LITTLE too important to "outsource".

What a difference living in TX these last 6 years! I LOVE TEXAS! The people here KNOW they are citizens, with rights, and they demand to be treated as such under the law. They have sense enough to know that criminals don't commit crimes when cops are around. They choose the times and places of their assaults so that when they do it, the only people likely to be present are YOU and THEM.

Cops do a great job of identifying perps, arresting them, and gathering evidence to convict them with. That might prevent them from attacking the NEXT guy, but it does YOU little good if you're lying on the pavement with someone drawing a white chalk line around you.

[KRM45]

Guys, it's a different world in the "discretionary" states. I spent the first 50 years of my lifde in RI, the last 8 of them with a hard won CHL.

Welcome to Texas Frankie! And welcome to the forum.
I spent many years in the New England states myself.

[oilman]

What really comes across is the arrogance and the condescending attitude of some of these LEO officials who want to strictly limit permits.

The comment that they will consider granting a permit to those who carry large amounts of money always astounds me with its illogic. Isn't my life worth more than a large amount of money? Shouldn't this fact alone allow me to have a CHL?

I am glad I live in Texas.

[frankie_the_yankee]

What really comes across is the arrogance and the condescending attitude of some of these LEO officials who want to strictly limit permits.

Agreed. Like I said, to them, we're 2nd class citizens.

The comment that they will consider granting a permit to those who carry large amounts of money always astounds me with its illogic. Isn't my life worth more than a large amount of money? Shouldn't this fact alone allow me to have a CHL?

Of course it should.

I think their "rationale" is that someone whose business involves frequently carrying large amounts of money is that that person is more likely to be targetted by robbers than someone who doesn't.

It's not the money that is "more worthy" of being defended. It is because the act of robbery inherently involves the threat and risk of death or great bodily harm, and that someone who frequently carrys large amounts on money is at greater risk of this happening to them.

For instance, let's say you made it a practice of walking around with $5000 or more in cash in your pockets "just because you could". (i.e. not for any business-related reason) If you then applied for a permit in one of these discretionary jurisdictions, and gave carrying lots of money as your "reason", you would most likely be denied.

I am glad I live in Texas.

No argument there brother.

[srothstein]

I did not watch the video, as I expected it to not be truly representative of police views.

To give you some police point of view on gun control, Police magazine recently ran a survey of its membership on their opinions on gun control. To subscribe to this magazine, you must be an LEO of some type, a CJ student, or related to the field in a similar manner.

The article reporting the results is not on-line yet (hope it will be soon) but 84% of the officers are against gun control. About 50% did believe in licenses though (and I am not sure how that jibes with the ones who said no to gun control). There is a little discussion about it in the police forums, but not much. If you check there, you will see that the officers who believe citizens are second class are a very small minority and will get corrected by others fairly quickly.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If you check there, you will see that the officers who believe citizens are second class are a very small minority and will get corrected by others fairly quickly.

I do not disagree. My experience in discretionary states is that police administrators tend to be anti gun rights, while the street cops and rank and file tend to be pro gun rights.

Unfortunately, when you are trying to get a permit in those states, it is the administrators (chiefs, etc.) that you are dealing with - or sometimes the state DOJ. And they are merely following the law.

See, in those states, it's THE LAW that renders most people as second class citizens.

So the arrogant public officials do not "get corrected" by anyone. They are the ones in charge. And they have the law behind them.

I have personally been lectured by a deputy chief and, on another occassion, by an assistant AG as to why I didn't really "need" a CHL. From their viewpoint, they had thepower and they knew it, and acted like it.

Lucky for me, I already had my CHL by then - issued by a pro gun rights AG a month or so before he came up for re-election. (I had been advised that this was the absolute best time to apply.)

I bring this stuff up because it seems that people living in shall issue states have no idea of the Kabuki dance you have to go through to get a CHL in a discretionary state.

[kauboy]

What really comes across is the arrogance and the condescending attitude of some of these LEO officials who want to strictly limit permits.

I'm certainly for limiting permits. If it was up to me, nobody would get one because they wouldn't exist.

Of course, if it was up to me, nobody would need one, because they would ALL already be armed, as they should be.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "police administrators tend to be anti gun rights, while the street cops and rank and file tend to be pro gun rights."

Unfortunately, that the way it is in some Tejas cities too, particularly the larger ones where the admin-types are so far removed from the realities of the streets - and/or they have become political puppets.