TexasCHLforum.com

NcongruNt wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

scud runner wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:I can see a lot of arrest for open carry (especially in the big cities) if it is not made explicit that open carry is not disorderly conduct.

Do they arrest a lot of bank and armored car guards for disorderly conduct where you live?

No, but HPD isn't a big fan of CHLs.

Neither is APD

I've never had APD give me any grief over my CHL. They act surprised that I'd actually be carrying every time that I inform them that I am (when they ask after I present my CHL), but they've never reacted negatively.

Hmm, I was thinking this was Austin, but as I recall now, I believe it was Round Rock.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jordanmills wrote:...The more relevant question is how the prosecution intends to prove what the person was thinking when they OC.

They don't have to. They can take it to court and ultimately have it thrown out, or they can simply decline to prosecute. Either way the person arrested now has an arrest record, a blot on his reputation, some time in jail, and is out a bunch of money. This is a great deterrent to generally law abiding citizens (as opposed to actual criminal gang-banger types), as regularly attested to on this forum.

This is what happens, for example, at JFK and La Guardia airports when someone is foolish enough to think the federal FOPA applies and tries to check a gun. Even he can prove he was traveling IAW FOPA, and the judge tosses the case or the prosecutor goes forward, the airport police will still go ahead and arrest the next guy who tries it, because there is no downside, no penalty for prosecutors and police (and judges) who do not like armed citizens. The Airport Authority was sued over this nonsense, but the eventually won.

Texas as fewer such prosecutors and police, but it has some (remember a certain Houston prosecutor, the MPA, and "traveling?"). Small solace to the guy who does trip over an LEO or prosecutor who dislikes open carry.

Thus, yes, the law permitting OC will need to be written carefully and strongly in favor of OC. It will not be enough to simply remove references that make it illegal, otherwise other stuff like disorderly conduct will be used, and it will take years of court cases and appeals to sort it out. (Again, look at the MPA).

ELB wrote:

jordanmills wrote:...The more relevant question is how the prosecution intends to prove what the person was thinking when they OC.

They don't have to. They can take it to court and ultimately have it thrown out, or they can simply decline to prosecute. Either way the person arrested now has an arrest record, a blot on his reputation, some time in jail, and is out a bunch of money. This is a great deterrent to generally law abiding citizens (as opposed to actual criminal gang-banger types), as regularly attested to on this forum.

This is what happens, for example, at JFK and La Guardia airports when someone is foolish enough to think the federal FOPA applies and tries to check a gun. Even he can prove he was traveling IAW FOPA, and the judge tosses the case or the prosecutor goes forward, the airport police will still go ahead and arrest the next guy who tries it, because there is no downside, no penalty for prosecutors and police (and judges) who do not like armed citizens. The Airport Authority was sued over this nonsense, but the eventually won.

Texas as fewer such prosecutors and police, but it has some (remember a certain Houston prosecutor, the MPA, and "traveling?"). Small solace to the guy who does trip over an LEO or prosecutor who dislikes open carry.

Thus, yes, the law permitting OC will need to be written carefully and strongly in favor of OC. It will not be enough to simply remove references that make it illegal, otherwise other stuff like disorderly conduct will be used, and it will take years of court cases and appeals to sort it out. (Again, look at the MPA).

Yeah you have a point with the good old beat the rap but not the ride. But HB 2614 would help... (" Relating to a civil action for deprivation of rights", http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB2641" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Of course, that crackpot Burnam filed it, but it's a nice thought.

hirundo82 wrote:An important element of an open carry bill should be to specify that open carry alone does not qualify as an offense under §42.08:

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm

I can see a lot of arrest for open carry (especially in the big cities) if it is not made explicit that open carry is not disorderly conduct.

Something along the lines of "A person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code does not commit an offense under subsection (a)(8) if the sole element of the conduct is the person carries a handgun in an unconcealed manner."

Which is effectively Licensed Open Carry. While I am ultimately an advocate of Constitutional Carry, I am not naive enough to think that we can get there in one fell swoop. This intermediate step is exactly what I've said all along would be necessary to the process.

I wish I were wrong about that, but I don't think I am.

The bill changes the language on 30.06 signs. If it passes any signs up right now wouldn't be any good.

hirundo82 wrote:

scud runner wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:I can see a lot of arrest for open carry (especially in the big cities) if it is not made explicit that open carry is not disorderly conduct.

Do they arrest a lot of bank and armored car guards for disorderly conduct where you live?

No, but HPD isn't a big fan of CHLs.

I have to disagree. CHL is a non-issue, even with HPD. With a 5,000 man department, there are bound to be a few that are anti-CHL, but overall they aren't.

Chas.

sjfcontrol wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

hirundo82 wrote: No, but HPD isn't a big fan of CHLs.

Neither is APD

I've never had APD give me any grief over my CHL. They act surprised that I'd actually be carrying every time that I inform them that I am (when they ask after I present my CHL), but they've never reacted negatively.

Hmm, I was thinking this was Austin, but as I recall now, I believe it was Round Rock.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Round Rock police, I can believe. My past dealings with them (pre-CHL in 2003) do not lead me to believe that they tend to leave much of the public they deal with feeling good about the interaction. I'm sure this does not describe all officers in the organization, but I've heard many accounts from friends who have had interactions with them that reflect the same kind of authoritarian attitude in the way they treat folks they detain.

Specifically in my case, I met some friends who were out of town at the hotel they were staying at, since I worked in Round Rock at the time and was just getting off work. I parked in the hotel parking lot and met up with my friends. We decided to take their car and we went to go eat. I came back to find 2 or 3 Round Rock police cars with lights on and the police searching through my vehicle.

I walk up and ask them why they were searching my van, and the officer in charge responds that they're "not searching" my van, while I look at the van with all the doors opened up and them looking through it. I asked why they were doing whatever they wanted to call what it was they were doing, and they said that there had been "vandalism in the area", no further explanation. Since my van was unlocked and had out of state plates (I'd just purchased it from a friend, and IL plates didn't pull up in their system), they decided that was some sort of PC to look inside my van , ostensibly to identify the owner.

Now this all may seem somewhat plausible, until you consider that there was no way the van met any description of they would have been given regarding a vehicle connected with any vandalism:



Additionally, they'd already spoken with the lady at the front desk who had told them that I met my friends in the lobby earlier and then we left. I had a valid and verified reason to be there, so why go through the van? At any rate, shortly after they showed up, they all took off except for the one officer I was talking with, who gave me an explanation of his PC (which didn't really make logical sense to me) and handed me his card and left.

I had an e-mail exchange with him after that, in which he gave me a long explanation that he was mainly going through my van to identify the owner and "protect my property", which I still don't completely buy. This included the fact that they'd already arrested some car burglars that night, but not really any explanation of why my van was targeted for this action other than the fact that the plates did not pull up and my doors were unlocked. Had he taken a short time to speak with me frankly about it when I was there in person, I would have come away feeling much better about our interaction. Maybe I was younger and simply upset, but that is part of the public they have to interact with. I left that interaction feeling my property had been violated without a good reason.

Sorry to get off-topic here.

Regarding the bill, I also doubt it will get to the floor or have a correlating version written on the other side of the legislature. I haven't read through the text of the bill yet, but I'm wary of anything that does a simple "search and replace" to remove the term concealed, as I have a feeling that has potential for a backfire. With the submission so late in the session, it seems there's the potential for amendments without adequate time to fix them, and we could end up with a bill that may hurt us more than it helps us.

NcongruNt wrote:I haven't read through the text of the bill yet, but I'm wary of anything that does a simple "search and replace" to remove the term concealed, as I have a feeling that has potential for a backfire. With the submission so late in the session, it seems there's the potential for amendments without adequate time to fix them, and we could end up with a bill that may hurt us more than it helps us.

You should read it. It's more than a simple search and replace. It addresses concerns regarding notification under 30.06 (which to my mind aren't serious), and repeals some other sections which would make it legally difficult to support.

NcongruNt wrote: I haven't read through the text of the bill yet, but I'm wary of anything that does a simple "search and replace" to remove the term concealed, as I have a feeling that has potential for a backfire.

If you haven't read it why do you think that's what it does?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have to disagree. CHL is a non-issue, even with HPD. With a 5,000 man department, there are bound to be a few that are anti-CHL, but overall they aren't.

Chas.

You're probably right. I haven't had any dealings with HPD either way on the issue; I was just recalling the issues that there were back in the Rosenthal days (although that was obviously mainly the DA's office rather than HPD).

In fact even then there was a notable lack of enthusiasm for Rosenthals policy by HPD. When Rosenthal got into trouble, I believe that his attempted persecution of travelers was a major factor in not finding support within his own party. Politicians observed and took notice.