TexasCHLforum.com

Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.

jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.

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.

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.

Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask...... Who is "Dutton", and why is he significant to the issue?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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.

Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask...... Who is "Dutton", and why is he significant to the issue?

Dutton, or the Dutton amendment refers to Amendment 3 added during the third reading in the House by Dutton and Rinaldi which states:

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 ... 910H33.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Per the Senate State Affairs Committee Report, the Dutton Amendment was removed for the following reason:

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.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00910S.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[/quote]
Please pardon my ignorance, but I have to ask...... Who is "Dutton", and why is he significant to the issue?[/quote]

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.

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:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.

If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....

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.

Tracker wrote:

jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.

If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....

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.

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.

Austin's PD has never been inattentive to spurious MWAG calls, so I'm not sure. Remember, they're the ones (under the notorious Acevedo) who put up that huge billboard, right by the freeway, saying "Tell us about your neighbor who has a gun."

jmra wrote:

Tracker wrote:

jmra wrote:Don't worry, I'm not revealing any secrets or anything the opposition hasn't already stated they plan to do.

If MDA floods 911 with exaggeration about what you are doing.....

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.

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.

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.

Too Many 911 Calls Can Get You Arrested
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/0 ... ested.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
" False reporting causes dispatchers to shift resources from real emergencies. It’s also illegal to repeatedly call 911 without an actual, concrete reason to do so. In some states, this can constitute harassment."


Hypothetical: suppose MDA forms hit squads looking for open carrying to call 91, say 6th street in Austin, what's to stop some OC activists from using their video to record the before and during a police encounter and then match that encounter against a trumpet up MDA 911 call? At least it'd be a better use of their time then goating police into encounters for their U-tube pages

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 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".

When the legislature enacts new laws that effect law enforcement officers, the training officer of each agency has the responsibility to school all there department personnel on the new laws.
When I was a deputy, our department had a formal meeting, handouts with all information involving the new laws.Included a question and answer session.
Everything was made crystal clear.

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.

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.

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.

Police officers and deputies have been sizing up people for a long time now and open-carry will not be any different. More people talked themselves into tickets than out of them and so too with trips to jail. LEO and public response to open-carry will change over time, but how it will change will depend upon how people carrying guns conduct themselves with LEOs and the public. Be a jerk and you'll be treated like a jerk by citizens with cell phones and responding LEOs. If, and that's a very big IF, over time people open-carrying conduct themselves responsibly and respectfully, then it will become a non-issue just as concealed-carry has been a non-issue for almost 20 years.

The biggest danger to successful implementation of open-carry is the predictable response by people who love to be on video preaching to a LEO or citizen about the meaning of the Constitution. People who scream at LEOs on video like Grisham and Watkins will make the evening news and anti-gunners will loudly proclaim "I told you so!" So will Chief Acevedo, MDA, Sen. Ellis and others. The general public will be swayed to some greater or lesser extent depending upon the frequency and severity of the incidents. The more that they are on TV or Facebook, the greater the level of LEO interaction in response to MWAG calls. This will fuel the egos and provide photo ops and a bully pulpit for those who care far more about being in the spotlight than in changing Texas gun laws to the benefit of Texans.

Handcuffs? Hour-long detentions? Running the serial number on your handgun? Really? Going into a new era where open-carry is legal with that attitude will go a long way toward making dire predictions come true. People spoiling for a fight can usually fine one. Most COPs are mirrors; be respectful to them and they will respond in kind.

Chas.