Re: An honest response from a local LEO (HB910)
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 12:22 pm
Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
This is why, if I planned to open carry on any sort of regular basis, I'd want to get some GunKote or DuraCoat in a very bright neon color, and use it on only the parts of the gun that are fully hidden by the holster. That way it becomes pretty obvious to the responding officers that the complainant never actually saw the gun out of the holster if they didn't notice that half of it is neon green or orange or pink or whatever.jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.
Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask...... Who is "Dutton", and why is he significant to the issue?Ruark wrote:I supposed I could tolerate a calm, polite request to quickly glance at my CHL and then let me go on my way, but I'm more concerned about those that are more on power trips - the ones that pull up with their cruisers with lights flashing, take your gun ("for your safety, sir"), go sit in their cars 10 minutes running your ID, ask you 25 questions about where you work, where you're going, etc. etc. etc. while a crowd gathers... while you're TRYING to just enjoy a nice Saturday afternoon stroll with your wife. Now that Dutton has been removed, this WILL happen.
Dutton, or the Dutton amendment refers to Amendment 3 added during the third reading in the House by Dutton and Rinaldi which states:The Annoyed Man wrote:Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask...... Who is "Dutton", and why is he significant to the issue?Ruark wrote:I supposed I could tolerate a calm, polite request to quickly glance at my CHL and then let me go on my way, but I'm more concerned about those that are more on power trips - the ones that pull up with their cruisers with lights flashing, take your gun ("for your safety, sir"), go sit in their cars 10 minutes running your ID, ask you 25 questions about where you work, where you're going, etc. etc. etc. while a crowd gathers... while you're TRYING to just enjoy a nice Saturday afternoon stroll with your wife. Now that Dutton has been removed, this WILL happen.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 910H33.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Sec. 411.2049.
CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00910S.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop some one who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.
That's fine with me. It's called desensitization. As PDs don't have manpower to waste on stuff like this, it'd probably go a long way in terms of how to sort out a legitimate call from a call about legal behavior.jmra wrote:Here is the problem I see with LEO responding to every call of someone OCing a handgun...groups like MDA will start patrols looking for people OCing and will flood police departments with calls (this is assuming people actually OC when/if this bill passes). These groups will start campaigns to recruit mindless robots to do the same (there are a lot of mindless robots out there).
No, I believe police departments have to train 911 operators to ask the right questions to determine if a crime is being committed. It is my understanding that much of OK has taken this approach and it has been very effective in limiting unnecessary dispatches of LEO.
If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.
In the committee hearings even the republicans said that they never wanted anyone to feel they couldn't call 911 if they were concerned about someone they saw with a gun. I won't hold my breath hoping that one of the MDA moms gets charged for calling in a MWAG.Tracker wrote:If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.
Victim of a Fake 911 Call? What Can You Do?
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... ou-do.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. File a police report. Falsely reporting a crime to police is a misdemeanor. Whether it's part of a bad revenge plot or not, making a false report or misusing the 911 system, with the added danger of an innocent victim potentially getting killed, can warrant pretty serious criminal action. Initiate legal action against whoever made the call and don't treat it as a practical joke you can just ignore.
I don't have a problem with them calling 911 either. It's up to the dispatcher to question the call as to what the MWAG is doing and to inform the caller the situation is legal. If the caller lies to or misleads the dispatcher then you can file a complaint on the caller....even if the police department won't. And keep in mind that if these MDA are repeatedly calling 911 and officers discover their calls are false alarms these MDA individuals can be charged.jmra wrote:In the committee hearings even the republicans said that they never wanted anyone to feel they couldn't call 911 if they were concerned about someone they saw with a gun. I won't hold my breath hoping that one of the MDA moms gets charged for calling in a MWAG.Tracker wrote:If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.
Victim of a Fake 911 Call? What Can You Do?
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/0 ... ou-do.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. File a police report. Falsely reporting a crime to police is a misdemeanor. Whether it's part of a bad revenge plot or not, making a false report or misusing the 911 system, with the added danger of an innocent victim potentially getting killed, can warrant pretty serious criminal action. Initiate legal action against whoever made the call and don't treat it as a practical joke you can just ignore.
I suppose I should have clarified that those I had the debates with were not reasonable people. They are the ones who's vocabulary only consists of "shall not be infringed".Jumping Frog wrote: That is not consistent with the conversations and discussions I have personally seen from other states. Most reasonable people agree if a police officer is dispatched in response to a MWAG call, the police should proceed to the location.
I am not a LEO, but my dad was. As far as I know, not every call a LEO is dispatched to HAS to have a report written up on. Usually they just tell the dispatcher what was "found out" and go on about their merry way. As a disclaimer: This was 20 years ago, not sure it's still the same.Tracker wrote:Question: if someone calls in a 911 MWAG on you and an officer shows up he has to write up a report. Is there any downside to having your name written up in that report? I would think no but wounding if someone has a different opinion.