TexasCHLforum.com

txmatt wrote:Also, given unlicensed car carry these days in Texas, if an officer wants to know whether there is a weapon in the vehicle he should be asking... a non-chl will not be informing an officer if carrying unless asked.

Good guys are allowed to carry in the car without a CHL so police should assume the good guys have guns. Good guys will admit they have a gun but they're good guys so they're not a big threat to honest cops.

Criminals are not allowed to carry in their cars but they're criminals and don't obey the law so police should assume the bad guys have guns. Criminals are not allowed to have guns so they'll probably lie and say they don't have a gun. Criminals are a serious threat to honest cops (but maybe not to cops on the take.)

Therefore honest cops should be more careful of drivers who say they don't have a gun in the car. They're more likely to be dangerous criminals.

txmatt wrote:Folks, the law is clear on this.

Very clear in fact. So if this isn't "working out" for Law Enforcement then perhaps measures should be taken to change it. I'm pretty sure this is still the best way to do things.

If you are not carrying there is no need to show the CHL. If a cop sees that I have a CHL and then gets angry at me for following the law, I will be making a complaint to his/her supervisor.

And I will be right behind you (maybe in front). This is the only way to stop someone from "getting hinky" about it.

It makes no sense once seeing that someone has a CHL to then assume that the person has suddenly chosen to start violating the law rather than the much more plausible explanation that that person is not carrying at the moment.

Exactly.

Also, given unlicensed car carry these days in Texas, if an officer wants to know whether there is a weapon in the vehicle he should be asking... a non-chl will not be informing an officer if carrying unless asked.

Another good point. Additionally, the officer must make contact with the person stopped in either case (CHL or not), that is point where he/she is vulnerable. This is unavoidable....and part of the job.

Rugrash-
Around here when I am carrying and inform a LEO of this after presenting my CHL then I get the response "good," not the other way around

.

Same thing here (at least to date). So apparently LEO are not so inclined to get "hinky" everywhere we encounter them.

As concerns "Officer Safety": I agree with the other person who posted that much emphasis is put on Officer Safety these days. That is good and proper to a point. I personally know of no one that doesn't want our LEO personnel to go home alive and unscathed at the end of the day. This is the object, the goal and the "ideal" of the training.

However, if police training/tactics/procedures/policies become such that in "application" they violate my rights (or the law), then something is terribly wrong!

I am not in favor of encouraging a "military" type police force.

So... if Officer Safety becomes the only thing important (at all costs and by any means) then we have a very serious problem.

I DO NOT put small value on the lives of LEO. I am more than "aware" that the job they do subjects them to the possibility of physical harm and death. I recognize too, that a certain number of officers are killed in the line of duty each year. This is regrettable, saddening, and unfortunate.

So, we are left with this quandary: At what point does Officer Safety training...begin to overshadow the rights of the citizenship or abrogate written law?

On the one hand, an Officer may lose his/her life. No one wants that.

On the other hand, countless thousands of men have died and shed their blood for the freedoms, liberties, and "rights" we enjoy as Americans. Not to mention...we are nation of "laws".

In this case, I don't know the answer. I will continue to extend every "courtesy" I can to LEO. I will be respectful to them and accommodating in every way it makes sense to do so. I expect the same from them.

Then, if at some point....the officer decides that his position of authority gives him the right to become angry,upset or hinky....that will be dealt with latter. And that's a promise.

Due to my work I often encounter LEOs in the course of their job. While at work I am required to be unarmed, but every time I have such an encounter and am asked for ID I always present my CHL. The primary reason is that it makes their job a little easier. You see anytime we report something they record everyone's information, of course. Now by presenting my local LEOs with my CHL they know I am already in their master names software and they never do call my ID in, so it saves them a little time. In fact when its an officer who deals with us on a frequent basis they often simply ask me for my DL number and ask what gun do I normally carry now. After answering their questions I usually get told "You really need to get one of these Kimbers like we are issued, plus you won't have to change holsters." But when you deal with shoplifters, forged/counterfit/hot checks, ect. regularly you get to know your local PD on a first name basis (And they are all pro-gun, Kimber addicts, and for the most part friendly).

I didnt bother reading all the posts for and against presenting your CHL, but I can say that I have to agree with those saying to show it. Yes, the law says that if you arent carrying, you dont have to show it, but really, how hard is it to take one more piece of plastic out of your wallet and give it to the officer? Myself, Im still waiting for it to get here, but when it does, this will be my personal policy. Along with turning on the dome light and having my hands in plain sight. Regardless of the stories out there, if you get pulled over by the police, you were probably doing something to deserve it. Dont make it worse for yourself. Cooperation and courtesy just might get you a warning and not a ticket. The officer is doing his/her job, and the easier you make it, the easier it will be.

Heck its kind of like of bragging. "look what I have officer" (plastic, not gun!)

Im also going to get one of those wallets that have the removable plastic sleave for ID cards, and keep them together just for this.

shaggydog wrote:

Longtooths wrote:Because he does not legally have to??? (just a guess)

It’s called “courtesy�. Why make a stressful situation any more so simply because “you legally can�. That is, at best, an immature philosophy.

There are many things you can do legally, but they can be disrespectful. Because we can perform an act, it is not a right. Why not consider the ethics involved. Be polite, be courteous and truthful.

Sorry for the missing "r"s in the post. I guess my arthritis was pretty bad that day.

I always have a gun in my car so I wouldn't have the problem my friend had. :)

Anyway what got my attention was the remark the LEO made "It's the law that you inform me of your CHL status even when not carrying" . He also told my friend that his instructor had given him the wrong information and that he should call him an inform him.

thankGod wrote:

shaggydog wrote:

Longtooths wrote:Because he does not legally have to??? (just a guess)

It’s called “courtesy�. Why make a stressful situation any more so simply because “you legally can�. That is, at best, an immature philosophy.

There are many things you can do legally, but they can be disrespectful. Because we can perform an act, it is not a right. Why not consider the ethics involved. Be polite, be courteous and truthful.

Ethics? How about the fact that we live in a country where we don't have to show papers everywhere we go? If you want to show your CHL when you aren't carrying, by all means do so; depending on the situation I may very well myself. The issue at hand, however, is someone being scolded by a police officer for following the law. That isn't right. If I am walking down the street I am under no obligation to show my diver's license to an officer or for that matter to have it with me, likewise with the CHL if I do not have my handgun. Will I if asked in order to ease the interaction? Sure, I am happy to show ID if I have it on me and it will make things go more swiftly. However, there is nothing disrespectful about not showing ID you are not required to have or to show and if an officer feels that it is and takes it out on me I will be making a complaint to his/her supervisor. I always treat police officers respectfully and show them courtesy and all I ask as a law-abiding citizen is that they do the same to me, and the vast majority that I have come in contact with do.

Lots of opinions here. But one thing is clear, if a civilian is scolded for following the law, a written complaint is in order. I understand the civilian may not have went above and beyond as most of us would have. However, that's beside the point. If a cop doesnt like the written requirements of a given law, that's fine, go trought the proper procedures and get it changed. "Scolding" is not the answer.

i have read thru most of the postings...some humorous and some not...I guess where i stand on this issue is this:
True, there is no LAW that makes you show a CHL if you are not carrying. But there is no law that states that you should hold the door open for old ladies leaving a store either. You do it because it is the Right Thing to Do. Not because you have the RIGHT not to.

Irregardless of what you think is polite, no one deserves to be scolded for obeying the law. Polite has not a thing to do with this.

An individual who does not show his CHL if he is not armed is RIGHT, and whether your version of Miss Manners dictates that you be polite and show yours is your business.

Would you expect to be scolded for driving the limit, coming to a complete stop, or for having your vehicle inspected before it expires?

Do you go ahead and tell the LEO that you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you are stopped too? That would be polite, but not required under the law.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Irregardless of what you think is polite, no one deserves to be scolded for obeying the law. Polite has not a thing to do with this.

An individual who does not show his CHL if he is not armed is RIGHT, and whether your version of Miss Manners dictates that you be polite and show yours is your business.

Would you expect to be scolded for driving the limit, coming to a complete stop, or for having your vehicle inspected before it expires?

Do you go ahead and tell the LEO that you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you are stopped too? That would be polite, but not required under the law.

Anygunanywhere

i am not disagreeing with you. Relax. i just stated my opinion on this..he could probably have avoided a negative response from the policeman by doing what the policeman was "used to experiencing" when encountering a CHL holder. i am not saying anything about the OP, he was correct. but IMO (again) politeness does have something to do with it. But that is just me, you know...Miss Manners.

I am relaxed, sitting back in my chair, drinkin' a cup of Joe, hitting the boards.

Just soaking up on some CHL forum therapy.

The "you" was intended for all of the "polite" and "courteous" believers. Maybe I should have used y'all instead.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Irregardless of what

The point is:

I can “politely� ignore the fact that your grasp of the proper use of the English language is flawed at best, or

I can adhere to the canons of education and admonish your use of a word that does not exist.

If you wish to select the “non-polite� alternative, that is your prerogative however, be prepared for the confrontation if you do so.

This scenario is analogous to the original premise of “politely� informing the officer that you are a CHL holder.

Thank you for the lesson. Feel free to correct everyone's spelling and grammar, professor. I am certain you will feel better once everyone here lives up to your academic and grammatical standards.

There really is no reason for any confrontation if one is obeying the law, is there? I do believe that is the point, not my grammar or spelling.

Anygunanywhere

OK folks, please keep this to the original topic and no personal critiquing of grammar and spelling.