AEA wrote:How about just forget about wading through their Policy directives and make them add this:
HQ-CHL (insert where appropriate)
Do NOT run serial numbers (NCIC Check) of valid CHL holder's handguns. (PERIOD)
Perhaps because as the stats show,, Texas residents who have a valid CHL, do in fact commit crimes. From Domestic assault to DUI, theft to receiving stolen property to rape and murder. I would prefer those folks with a valid CHL have there weapons serial number run though a NCIC
Based on CHL stats and LEO stats, I think they should spend more time running LEO guns.
Equo ne credite, Teucri. Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
57Coastie wrote:If I were with the DPS and saw this post I would move it up to the very top in Austin and cite it as an example of how CHL holders in Texas can be counted on to follow Texas gun law is a myth.
I'm not surprised you would.
I am very pleased that you think that I have earned a reputatiion for integrity here on this forum. My writings here have got to be all that you know about me.
More than 20 years as a federal law enforcement officer, and that makes me feel real good -- that thirty-five years later my advancing age and retirement have not compromised that integrity.
Oldgringo wrote:So, don't speed and/or break any traffic or other laws and by all means, do not otherwise call undue LEO attention to yourself and this question/issue becomes moot, eh?
It's true it reduces the risk but it doesn't eliminate it. Some people get hassled for DWB and it's not a stretch to think there is a connection between hassling someone for DWB and hassling someone for CHL. On the other hand, maybe having a Texas CHL is one of those things that call undue LEO attention to some people, so getting their 2A license from another state could reduce unwanted undue attention.
No offense taken.
For the time being, CHL's are kinda' secret and supposedly er...uh...concealed. The other thing goes to calling undue attention...maybe?
AEA wrote:How about just forget about wading through their Policy directives and make them add this:
HQ-CHL (insert where appropriate)
Do NOT run serial numbers (NCIC Check) of valid CHL holder's handguns. (PERIOD)
Perhaps because as the stats show,, Texas residents who have a valid CHL, do in fact commit crimes. From Domestic assault to DUI, theft to receiving stolen property to rape and murder. I would prefer those folks with a valid CHL have there weapons serial number run though a NCIC
Based on CHL stats and LEO stats, I think they should spend more time running LEO guns.
Link to stats please?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
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.
jimlongley wrote:The policy folks keep referring to is the all to frequent statement by an officer that the reason they are disarming the CHL at the traffic stop, and running the serial number, is that it is their policy.
Im not seeing any pattern pointing to that at this point.
Can you link me to the 1st person reports that state the officer disarmed teh CHL'er as a matter of policy? (NOTE, i do remember reading ONE such thread,,,so please understand Im not poking at you.. I know it has been reported.. it's the " frequent statement " part Im not so sure of.. and the reason I stated that other thread linked above.
Thanks
.
No, I do not keep track of such things, but I have read it many times.
Lots of inflammatory language, but little in the way of research and statistics.
In the Interest of full disclosure, I know where the arrest data for Texas cops is. Just curious where all the comments are coming from about LEO criminals - somebody must be seeing some different hard data.
My numbers show 0.1884% conviction rate (not arrest rate) for 2011 CHL holders.
Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.
Bear in mind, TCLEOSE licenses are suspended on arrests and not convictions.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Katygunnut wrote:Given that there is now no penalty for failing to show your CHL, one approach would be to just hand over your drivers license. If the LEO runs the license and identifies you as a CHL holder, and then asks if you are armed, you could say yes, and apologize for your oversight while then handing over the CHL.
This would at least allow for the possibility that the LEO would not ask the "are you armed" follow up question, and there would be no disarming. Also, since the encounter might well be over or close to over by the point that the LEO discovered the CHL to be carrying, there would seem to be less of a need to disarm due to "officer safety" concerns.
If I were with the DPS and saw this post I would move it up to the very top in Austin and cite it as an example of how CHL holders in Texas can be counted on to follow Texas gun law is a myth.
Even worse, here we have a senior member passing this advice for unlawful behavior on to junior members of the forum.
A nice way to compromise all the fine work done for all of us in Austin by those like our fearless leader Chas.
Jim
So if someone on this forum said they believed in aliens from Planet X, would that be some sort of realistic example of CHLers IN GENERAL believing in aliens from Planet X? (And I chose something hyperbolic simply to make a point.) Sure doesn't seem like it to me. Also, just because he is a "senior member" of this forum doesn't make his word worth any more than mine or yours IN AND OF ITSELF because as someone else said in a past posting, the information you receive on here is worth what you pay for it, and I take that to mean that each person has to decide the worth and applicability of the information they read here for themselves...would it have been better if he added the standard disclaimer of IANAL?
Gigag04, I agree that may not be the most reliable source. I referenced it as there is very little data on police crime available to the public and that site did have some stats and data they had gathered from public information.
However, in doing some quick research, I ran across this article in an FBI bulletin regarding officer corruption. Thought others may find it of interest. I by no means intend this as a knock on police officers in general as I have several family members that are or have been law enforcement officers including one that was the county sheriff. There are bad apples in every profession, including mine.
I do find it interesting how some officers take on the attitude the end justifies the means, including disarming chlers using the justification of officer safety when in actuality they have no reason to "reasonably" believe it necessary for safety and the real reason is to show their authority and run the gun's serial number without reason to believe it may be stolen. A case of end justifies the means and abuse of authority. This may also apply to traffic stops for the purpose of fishing for other more serious criminal activity.
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.
TCLEOSE publishes commission revocation and suspensions similar to TxDPS data on CHL holders. The TCLEOSE data is more condemning in the sense that it shows suspensions, whereas the DPS data shows only conviction data.
Also - that FBI doesn't really contain numbers either.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
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.
gigag04 wrote:My numbers show 0.1884% conviction rate (not arrest rate) for 2011 CHL holders.
Total number of suspensions AND revocations for TCLEOSE licensees was 23 last year. Out of +/- 75,000 licensees. Which yields 0.03%. The number of active licenses changes almost daily so that figure is subject to change.
[/quote]
The DPS data I saw for 2011 showed 120 convictions and a little over half a million licenses at the end of the year. That gives me a rate a little under 0.024% for CHL. We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person. If we agree on the second, then it seem a LEO has as much or little reason to disarm a Texas Concealed License holder as he does a fellow Texas Peace Officer under the same circumstances, such as a traffic stop.
recaffeination wrote: We can bicker about minutae or we can agree the rates for LEO and CHL are very close, especially in comparison to the average person.
I don't intend to to bicker. Some here have indicated that LEOs have a higher criminal incidence than CHL holders. When looking at the Texas numbers, this just isn't the case. CHLs have 6-8 times rate of incidence.
But I do agree that the run of the mill CHL holder poses little threat to an LEO during a routine contact.
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Off Topic -
J. Edgar Hoover used to brag that no FBI Special Agent had ever been convicted of a crime. His statistics were very accurate. If an agent was suspected of a crime, Hoover would fire him and have arrested him the next day.
For the time being, CHL's are kinda' secret and supposedly er...uh...concealed. The other thing goes to calling undue attention...maybe?
.