TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:A charge being dropped because the judge doesn't buy intent is not worth litigation. If this is all you have, and the officer was not malicious - you don't have a case.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, that should go double for cops.

08thunders wrote:

gigag04 wrote:A charge being dropped because the judge doesn't buy intent is not worth litigation. If this is all you have, and the officer was not malicious - you don't have a case.

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, that should go double for cops.

Was the officer malicious? because that is what you're looking for in a civil suit.

And...disagreement over intent has nothing to do with the officer making an arrest. Judges/juries disagree with officers frequently...which is why there are trials to begin with, and people just take our word at face value.

There are many things in place to protect the ordinary citizen.

glbedd53 wrote:I agree with that, not so sure I agree that LEO's are that informed on the law, I know too many that are not

How many exactly do you know? I would like name, rank, and department of these officers you know that are uninformed of CHL laws so we can do something about it. If you can - the date you last interacted with these officers would also be a plus.

A phone number would be helpful.

wgoforth wrote:And may I add that there is a difference between good/bad cop vs UNINFORMED cop. I am sure that the local police in my community are good cops, but doesn't mean they are fully aware of current CHL laws. I recently asked an ex-police chief of a nearby community how much firearm training that the police in his town have, he shrugged his shoulders and said NONE. That "the bigger cities have police academies, but all they have to do is qualify on the range."

There is no excuse for any police officer not to be fully informed of the laws concerning CHL. It's not like we just started handing out CHL's.

Right2Carry wrote:

wgoforth wrote:And may I add that there is a difference between good/bad cop vs UNINFORMED cop. I am sure that the local police in my community are good cops, but doesn't mean they are fully aware of current CHL laws. I recently asked an ex-police chief of a nearby community how much firearm training that the police in his town have, he shrugged his shoulders and said NONE. That "the bigger cities have police academies, but all they have to do is qualify on the range."

There is no excuse for any police officer not to be fully informed of the laws concerning CHL. It's not like we just started handing out CHL's.

Firearms training and knowledge of CHL laws are not related.....at all.

I've had plenty of both, but it doesn't mean there is a relationship there.

No I can't. They are my friends. I can tell you that one of them is the number 2 man in the PD in the town I'm talkin about. What's even worse in his case he didn't know until informed him of the change in the law that allows for carry in your vehicle with or without a CHL. The law change was about 2 yrs old at the time. Can you see how someone could get wrongly "cuffed and stuffed"?

glbedd53 wrote:No I can't. They are my friends. I can tell you that one of them is the number 2 man in the PD in the town I'm talkin about. What's even worse in his case he didn't know until informed him of the change in the law that allows for carry in your vehicle with or without a CHL. The law change was about 2 yrs old at the time. Can you see how someone could get wrongly "cuffed and stuffed"?

How about the others? You can PM them to me if you like.

If this is case we need to get it fixed ASAP. We are kind of veering of course so we can take it to PMs if others feel thats more appropriate.

I wouldn't want them giving my name to anyone, I'm not giving theirs. I do talk to 2 of them regularly, I'm gonna follow up with them about it. Don't think I'm someone with an ax to grind with LEO's. I'm 56 yrs old, never been arrested or been near a jail. I've had one ticket in 30 yrs and I've never personnally had the slightest problem .

gigag04 wrote:Was the officer malicious? because that is what you're looking for in a civil suit.

And...disagreement over intent has nothing to do with the officer making an arrest.

Intentionally failing to conceal is a misdemeanor. Did the officer(s) have a warrant? If not, was the offense committed in his presence or within his view? If not, is this one of the misdemeanors for which a peace officer may arrest without warrant and without witnessing? I think the answer to those questions would help answer your question about malice.

gigag04 wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

wgoforth wrote:And may I add that there is a difference between good/bad cop vs UNINFORMED cop. I am sure that the local police in my community are good cops, but doesn't mean they are fully aware of current CHL laws. I recently asked an ex-police chief of a nearby community how much firearm training that the police in his town have, he shrugged his shoulders and said NONE. That "the bigger cities have police academies, but all they have to do is qualify on the range."

There is no excuse for any police officer not to be fully informed of the laws concerning CHL. It's not like we just started handing out CHL's.

Firearms training and knowledge of CHL laws are not related.....at all.

I've had plenty of both, but it doesn't mean there is a relationship there.

That is true, but I was trying to point out lack of training period since where you are you said you have to have ongoing training. In fact, the same ex chief of police told me "people would be scared if they knew how poorly trained our police were." You may have missed where I stated the State Trooper said ANY no gun sign works the same. I am 49, never even have had a speeding ticket and a minister of a church... so I'm not against LEO's at all. Just every police dept is not the same when it comes to knowledge and training. Can still be great cops, but makes my carrying a tad more nerve racking.

I have no doubt there are officers out there that are anti CHL and even anti 2nd amendment. My best friend was pulled over for speeding by a DPS on his way to work at 6:30 AM. He handed the DPS his DL and CHL just like we are tought to do. The DPS asked him, are you carrying now? No,I'm on my way to work but it is in the console. Would you mind if I search you? Well I guess not. My friend is a supervison at the plant. While he's being searched on the side of the highway people that work under him and over him, etc are driving by. Now, did the DPS have the right? Yes but why? He has a CHL so why would he lie? It was unnecessary. Unnecessary embarrassment. Police officers want to be treated with respect, so do citizens.

glbedd53 wrote:I have no doubt there are officers out there that are anti CHL and even anti 2nd amendment. My best friend was pulled over for speeding by a DPS on his way to work at 6:30 AM. He handed the DPS his DL and CHL just like we are tought to do. The DPS asked him, are you carrying now? No,I'm on my way to work but it is in the console. Would you mind if I search you? Well I guess not. My friend is a supervison at the plant. While he's being searched on the side of the highway people that work under him and over him, etc are driving by. Now, did the DPS have the right? Yes but why? He has a CHL so why would he lie? It was unnecessary. Unnecessary embarrassment. Police officers want to be treated with respect, so do citizens.

If I had been asked if I could be searched, my reply would be, "Why?" If the officer couldn't give me an answer to my satisfaction, I'd answer, "No." A police officer must have probable cause (you smell of alcohol or illegal substances, someone matching your description committed a crime recently, etc.) or a warrant in order to search you or your vehicle. They would have to spend a lot of time to eventually find absolutely nothing illegal in my vehicle. It's the principle of the matter....

Back when I was in college, me and a buddy went backpacking in Big Bend for spring break. Driving back to College Station, we went through Del Rio, and went across the border for a few hours. Driving north from Del Rio, we were stopped by a roadblock and a police officer asked us if we had anything illegal in the vehicle. Bear in mind we were both scruffy and hadn't showered in several days. I replied that we had nothing illegal in the car, and the police officer asked if he could search our vehicle. I replied, "Go ahead," and he just said, "Nevermind," and let us go on our way.

I didn't know then what I know now. I'm sure he was just looking for signs of guilt that would've indicated we had marijuana or other illegal substances in the vehicle. I'm sure he was also looking for illegal immigrants (even though this was 1990, before that became as big of an issue as it is now.) However nowadays I would still insist on my Fourth Amendment rights. Granted, given our appearance and the fact we were college kids heading north from a border town, he might have gotten away with probable cause, but I would still always refuse to permit a search now unless there was a dang good reason.

I respect peace officers, but I also believe that the Bill of Rights is amended to our constitution for a reason, and the Fourth Amendment is just as important as the rest of them.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

MojoTexas

gigag04 wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:I agree with that, not so sure I agree that LEO's are that informed on the law, I know too many that are not

How many exactly do you know? I would like name, rank, and department of these officers you know that are uninformed of CHL laws so we can do something about it. If you can - the date you last interacted with these officers would also be a plus.

A phone number would be helpful.

Just call the Round Rock PD and ask for Sergeant Goldman. He is familiar with this case and the officers involved. The arresting officer whom I won't name here told me in fact I won’t get my CHL back (it's in my back pocket) please call and do something about it. Inform them that accidental exposure or printing is not a misdemeanor. It must be intentionaly,purposefully or wrecklessly exposed according to thr law. If the gun is in a DEEP CONCEALD INSIDE THE WAIST BAND HOLSTER AND THERE IS A VALID CHL IN THE WALLET do not arrest.

I believe if I ever have a confrontation to discuss here I will ensure that an invitation to participate is forwarded to all involved parties and barring that ensure that full contact information with incident numbers, times and locations is included. I wouldn't want any anomalous contacts I post to be called out as one sided. Otherwise those reading the forum will be forced to take my words at face value and I wouldn't want to burden the participants here with such a dilemma.

handog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:I agree with that, not so sure I agree that LEO's are that informed on the law, I know too many that are not

How many exactly do you know? I would like name, rank, and department of these officers you know that are uninformed of CHL laws so we can do something about it. If you can - the date you last interacted with these officers would also be a plus.

A phone number would be helpful.

Just call the Round Rock PD and ask for Sergeant Goldman. He is familiar with this case and the officers involved. The arresting officer whom I won't name here told me in fact I won’t get my CHL back (it's in my back pocket) please call and do something about it. Inform them that accidental exposure or printing is not a misdemeanor. It must be intentionaly,purposefully or wrecklessly exposed according to thr law. If the gun is in a DEEP CONCEALD INSIDE THE WAIST BAND HOLSTER AND THERE IS A VALID CHL IN THE WALLET do not arrest.

gigag04

Thank you for your offer to work this situation in your post above; “If this is case we need to get it fixed ASAP.” Seldom do we see people willing to step up and right a wrong and I want to let you know I and I’m sure others here admire you for this. Please let us know the outcome of your conversation with Sergeant Goldman. If the fix you are able to implement with Sgt Goldman at the RRPD is successful maybe that is something we can get deployed throughout the State. This could be a good thing for both LEO and Citizen.

Thanks Again and Have a Nice Day!