TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know why they are letting that guy give a commercial pitch.

Chas.

The TX Shield Law guy?

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know why they are letting that guy give a commercial pitch.

Chas.

The TX Shield Law guy?

Not Edwin, but the other guy who had a hard time talking.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know why they are letting that guy give a commercial pitch.

Chas.

The TX Shield Law guy?

Not Edwin, but the other guy who had a hard time talking.

Chas.

Oh, yeah know who you mean now.

I wasn't able to watch, but based on comments here it appears it's about what was to be expected... Overall did anybody get the feeling Houston PD would go out of their way to make it difficult to practically OC by constantly checking IDs or will it largely be a non-issue?

joelamosobadiah wrote:I wasn't able to watch, but based on comments here it appears it's about what was to be expected... Overall did anybody get the feeling Houston PD would go out of their way to make it difficult to practically OC by constantly checking IDs or will it largely be a non-issue?

I watched about half of it so perhaps my impression isn't completely accurate, but from what I saw it seems clear to me that they are going to stop and ID anyone they see, and they will investigate anything called in (meaning sending an officer to then stop and ID, rather than dispatch asking whether the MWAG was doing anything other than carrying a gun).

To me, possibly the most concerning part that I saw was when the chief indicated that he's heard nothing about those groups who have indicated that they will call 911 (and worse) whenever they see a MWAG - and the chief not only hadn't heard of anyone having said or posted those things, said that any call like that would be investigated. He did admit that they get lots of false 911 calls. Again, maybe I missed something else on this point, but I"ve lived elsewhere and where OC was no thing at all. And there if a MWAG call came in the first thing that dispatch did was to state that carrying OC was legal and to ask if that's all that was going on. I would have like to have heard this here, but didn't.

The second most troubling thing that I heard was when one of the "speakers" was making a statement about law abiding citizens and the low crime rate among CHL holders and how OC was legal in 44 states, the chief made a point of making a point by saying that Houston will on January 1st become the largest city in the US to have OC. Suggesting that nothing else applies, it will all be different here. So it doesn't sound like they've done a lot to investigate those lessons learned that are available across the country on how to make this go smoothly and safely for everyone. My point is that, coupled with my above about the chief not even knowing if there was a retention requirement in the law suggests to me that HPD hasn't done its homework, at least not wholly or adequately, to prepare for this.

Perhaps one major bit of "good" news was related to holsters where it was asked and answered several times -- that HPD at least has no interest in arresting someone for wearing a drop holster, or lots of other things. It was said that this wasn't important, and it was directly and indirectly stated that if it hangs from a belt or belt area, they have other important things to worry about. That I believe is very good news for Houston area folks.

My impression is despite personal feelings, HPD will conduct themselves professionally. I do not envy the work they do day in and day out in general.

They do not intend to give people a hard time based on statements they made. They will respond to calls, and detain you, request proof of license. and release you.

All the usual suspects on the left, and right (OCT) will continue to undermine things by diligently working against it, or acting like fools and idiots (OCT).

You can watch the video recording of it on the link originally provided.

At this point, I wonder how many that 'were going to OC' have been chilled into not OCing by virtue of expecting to be continuously stopped by LE and having to prove their CHL/LTC status?

Picture this: Throughout the course of the day while shopping in Houston, eating in restaurants, and so on, all the while OCing, you're stopped repeatedly by LE to prove your legality to OC.

Who would tolerate that indignity when they OC?

Abraham wrote:At this point, I wonder how many that 'were going to OC' have been chilled into not OCing by virtue of expecting to be continuously stopped by LE and having to prove their CHL/LTC status?

Picture this: Throughout the course of the day while shopping in Houston, eating in restaurants, and so on, all the while OCing, you're stopped repeatedly by LE to prove your legality to OC.

Who would tolerate that indignity when they OC?

If I knew that the town down the road would stop every driver in a particular car to see if they had a license, I probably wouldn't be driving in that town or at least not in that particular car. And to carry this more to a constitutional angle, if I knew that the police were going to compel anyone at a demonstration to give up their ID, even though they were lawfully assembling, I'd have to make a choice of going or not.

I believe they said that when asked for ID you had to provide your DL and your CHL. I seem to remember the state making the CHL a from of ID in the last session. So if I'm not driving all they should need is the CHL or do I have this incorrect ?

joelamosobadiah wrote:I wasn't able to watch, but based on comments here it appears it's about what was to be expected... Overall did anybody get the feeling Houston PD would go out of their way to make it difficult to practically OC by constantly checking IDs or will it largely be a non-issue?

Hard to say, I get the impression they aren't planning on constantly checking IDs, it will more be a case to case sort of basis, left to the officers discretion. At least that's what was said more or less. I think this will be a more wait and see how it plays out sort of deal.

If enough open carry the police will get tired of wasted checking with no arrests and move on to more productive stops.

hawk44 wrote:I believe they said that when asked for ID you had to provide your DL and your CHL. I seem to remember the state making the CHL a from of ID in the last session. So if I'm not driving all they should need is the CHL or do I have this incorrect ?

If I understand correctly, being detained does not warrant you having to ID, the failure to ID law would only come into effect once you were placed under arrest. You would have to show your LTC if you were open carrying but it has your TX DL number on it anyways, so I think that it becomes a moot point. Anyone else with a much better understanding of the law feel free to chime in...

Pariah3j wrote:

hawk44 wrote:I believe they said that when asked for ID you had to provide your DL and your CHL. I seem to remember the state making the CHL a from of ID in the last session. So if I'm not driving all they should need is the CHL or do I have this incorrect ?

If I understand correctly, being detained does not warrant you having to ID, the failure to ID law would only come into effect once you were placed under arrest. You would have to show your LTC if you were open carrying but it has your TX DL number on it anyways, so I think that it becomes a moot point. Anyone else with a much better understanding of the law feel free to chime in...

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
---
Last amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.

MeMelYup wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:

hawk44 wrote:I believe they said that when asked for ID you had to provide your DL and your CHL. I seem to remember the state making the CHL a from of ID in the last session. So if I'm not driving all they should need is the CHL or do I have this incorrect ?

If I understand correctly, being detained does not warrant you having to ID, the failure to ID law would only come into effect once you were placed under arrest. You would have to show your LTC if you were open carrying but it has your TX DL number on it anyways, so I think that it becomes a moot point. Anyone else with a much better understanding of the law feel free to chime in...

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
---
Last amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.

I stand corrected, I had miss-read that to be drivers's license or holder's handgun license. Good to know.

If the CHL is recognized as a valid ID for voting issued by the DPS, why wouldn't it be considered adequate ID?