TexasCHLforum.com

I don't believe the carrying of a weapon is the point. I think that anyone should be able to be armed (no license required).
My concern is that the LEO believes he should be treated differently because he is a LEO ( his boys in blue club). What's with this us and them mindset? LEOs aren't a special farernity. They have perpetuate one ( and we have allowed it). I grew up around LEOs, I wouldn't let some date my daughter , some are salt of the earth.....huuum......Sounds like the general population.

MONGOOSE wrote:I don't believe the carrying of a weapon is the point. I think that anyone should be able to be armed (no license required).
My concern is that the LEO believes he should be treated differently because he is a LEO ( his boys in blue club). What's with this us and them mindset? LEOs aren't a special farernity. They have perpetuate one ( and we have allowed it). I grew up around LEOs, I wouldn't let some date my daughter , some are salt of the earth.....huuum......Sounds like the general population.

Yep.

Abraham wrote:Taypo,

You're unrighteous indignation is silly.

If you care to act like the grownup I know you to be, and your questions equally adult, I'll be happy to answer.

Until then, adieu...

Im not sure how you're reading unrighteous indignation into my question, but I'll rephrase it.

The three largest police departments in this country are:
1. NYPD
2. Chicago PD
3. LAPD

Would you consider those three cities safe?

Abraham wrote:nightmare69,

"this business will be changing its policy regarding off duty LE carry very soon."

I hope so.

As for folks getting huffy about LEO's getting to be armed when they, the non-LEO's/CHLers, don't get to be, tough! Maybe future legislation will change this, but in the meantime, are you sure you don't want armed LEO's, just because you aren't allowed to be armed everywhere they can be armed? That attitude, to me, is petty/childish.

Me, I want armed LEO's everywhere it's possible.

You're right. How dare I complain about a government official having more rights than me? I'm sure that the government is more than capable of providing everything I need, comrade.

Abraham wrote:Taypo,

You're unrighteous indignation is silly.

If you care to act like the grownup I know you to be, and your questions equally adult, I'll be happy to answer.

Until then, adieu...

You are quick to dismiss someone's concerns as childish, yet you refuse to engage in conversation when the flaws are exposed in your post?

MONGOOSE wrote:I don't believe the carrying of a weapon is the point. I think that anyone should be able to be armed (no license required).
My concern is that the LEO believes he should be treated differently because he is a LEO ( his boys in blue club). What's with this us and them mindset? LEOs aren't a special farernity. They have perpetuate one ( and we have allowed it). I grew up around LEOs, I wouldn't let some date my daughter , some are salt of the earth.....huuum......Sounds like the general population.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer’s or investigator’s duties while carrying the weapon

I know this only prevents LEOs from being charged with carrying a firearm. The owner has the right to refuse entry. Since the owner of this club is Dan Aykroyd, a leftist anti-gun libtard, this policy is no surprise.

If there was an active shooter in their establishment immediately endangering lives, think HOB might allow or even request armed LEO rescue of their employees/customers or insist they go in unarmed?

Were HOB to insist unarmed LEO's go up against armed criminals, I wonder what the LEO's response might be?

Think HOB anti-gun stance might promptly change, especially if Dan A happened to be there with his life in immediate danger or think they'd hew to their anti-gun policy, Dan A. would just have to take his chances...?

Remember that cliche: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Abraham wrote:If there was an active shooter in their establishment immediately endangering lives, think HOB might allow or even request armed LEO rescue of their employees/customers or insist they go in unarmed?

Were HOB to insist unarmed LEO's go up against armed criminals, I wonder what the LEO's response might be?

Think HOB anti-gun stance might promptly change, especially if Dan A happened to be there with his life in immediate danger or think they'd hew to their anti-gun policy, Dan A. would just have to take his chances...?

Remember that cliche: A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Remove every instance of "LEO" and replace it with "CHL holder" and you've got exactly the same argument. Maybe a stronger one, considering we outnumber LEOs by about 10-1.

Having a badge doesn't make you Superman, especially when you're off duty.

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

LEOs are allowed to enjoy life and cut loose like everyone else. If you do that it's a good idea to disarm. Honestly, I have only had 1 drink at a restaurant since I got a badge. I also disarmed before doing so. This is why most LEOs would rather party at home or a friends house vs a bar.

nightmare69 wrote:

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

LEOs are allowed to enjoy life and cut loose like everyone else. If you do that it's a good idea to disarm. Honestly, I have only had 1 drink at a restaurant since I got a badge. I also disarmed before doing so. This is why most LEOs would rather party at home or a friends house vs a bar.

I am certain most CHL holders feel the same way. I would much rather be armed when I go out than have a beer with my steak. So......what's the difference again?

Texsquatch wrote:So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

Nonapplical heh. You are the one whinning about not have been given "special"treatment and allowed to carry even though it is legally prohibited ( you special?). I believe everyone including you should be allowed to carry a weapon that has been legally obtained. I don't think Nyone should be regulating my Constitutional rights. However, I also support property rights. If a property owner legally prohibits firearms....so be it. You are the one who brought up you "boys in blue club". You think you are in a special club? How dare you decide who and where you will work because your feelings were hurt. You work and are paid by the taxpayer, if you can make them money, put on your big boy pants and do the job. You telling me that your family wouldn't be your first priority to protect if you are armed and they are with you?.....guess what.....I don't blame you......I'd be the same way. Bottom line....you are just a regular person who happens to have choose to be a Police Officer.

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.