TexasCHLforum.com

Polite reminder gents. Lets not let it get argumentative & personal.

Penn wrote:Who are you to say the there was no reason for him to feel he was in danger?

That's for a jury to decide. If they allow the system to work.

Penn wrote:

rm9792 wrote:

Double Naught Spy wrote:[quoteThere was no reason to feel he was in any danger.

Who are you to say the there was no reason for him to feel he was in danger? What a ludicrous statement.

Well lets see, Immediately pulled over, into a lighted parking lot, both windows down, engine off, dome light on, both hands on the wheel with paperwork out. He had already looked in the back and saw it was empty. If you think it was ludicrous to feel there might be danger then we should all be disarmed on every stop. It doesnt get any better than that for them. REASONABLE man theory. Since officers on this board and every other officer who has stopped me hasnt disrmed me and emptied the gun then this officer must be the unreasonable one. Not so ludicrous. Now if I stopped on the side of a dark road, all windows up and engine running then I might see your point. If he felt he was in danger then he needs another line of work. Bottom line is I have always fully supported LEO and will continue but they are not above the law and I do have my rights. Who are you to say it was a ludicrous statement?

I find it very interesting how this discussion has developed over time...I came back in here because the temperature of that discussion got to be a bit hotter than a few others if similar situations...

Texas is a unique state that passed a law, in some ways similar, yet with a few twists that are unique and superior to other states with similar laws that allow its citizens to carry a firearm for lawful self defensive purposes...To get that law passed there were quite a few compramises that put those of us interested in and who have obtained the license in a bit of a pickle over the years...

We have seen many improvements and tweeks to the law that have helped disprove many of those compramises were un-necessary and have made those go away for the most part...

Some of the sticking points I have seen over the years have been these "requirements" to notify, and to allow "disarming" CHL's by Law Enforcement if they reasonably believe it is in the interest of theirs and the public's safety to do so...

My only argument to that requirement is this...If there is a reasonable determination by the officer to disarm for any reason they feel, then why should they return the weapon at all, if it is that much of a reason to do so, returning it at the end of any "encounter", to me would be dumber than a bag of hammers!

So if there is a feeling that most encounters with Law Enforcement are to be contentious, or heated...Then disarming would be more prevalent in our state...To which I have not seen many instances of this occuring (minus this incident, and a few others I have heard about over the years...I think I can count them all on one hand... )

I also do not believe this is a case where you give someone of authority to do something, given an inch, and they take a mile...

Personally, for the safety of the public, and the officers, if they absolutely feel it is necessary for me to be disarmed...Then I feel it is safer for me to do it myself and render the firearm "safe"...I do not care how experienced you are...Taking a weapon from someone else is inhierently dangerous...Better to allow that person to do it themselves, and do it in a safe manner and direction...Then get on with the business at hand...

What this will create is a situation where you really need to determine (and be absolutely sure it is necessary to do so), and not under the "sometimes" obtuse "reasonable" factors we all must guage ourselves on a daily basis...

And those that can picture having to do this under the scrutiny of someone else, while they remained armed and ready to cover you if for some reason they believe that person is not going to "safe" their firearm...Well...We might as well just head for the hills...There will be blood in the streets and we might as well take our toys out of the sandbox and go home...(end scary ranting)

I don't lecture very much, and I have the upmost respect for both sides of the equation here, that goes without saying sometimes...But I tire of this insinuation that the CHL community in this state has something against the Law Enforcement community...That is so far from any truth, it is rediculous...

But, if there are things in the law that create this uneasyness, or allow some sort of abnormal scrutiny of our community, I am absolutely in support of removing that from the law...Especially in this case...

Off the soapbox now...I hope many will see what I am getting at here...No offence intended to anyone...

KBCraig wrote:Government Code § 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.


New since 2007:

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, if the law enforcement agency provides a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun. The peace officer shall secure the handgun in the locker and shall return the handgun to the license holder immediately after the license holder leaves the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility.
(c) A law enforcement facility shall prominently display at each entrance to a nonpublic, secure portion of the facility a sign that gives notice in both English and Spanish that, under this section, a peace officer may temporarily disarm a license holder when the license holder enters the nonpublic, secure portion of the facility. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height. The sign shall be displayed in a clearly visible and conspicuous manner.
(d) In this section:
(1) "Law enforcement facility" means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "Nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility" means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business
of the law enforcement agency.

To sum up: peace officers are only authorized to disarm licensees when they reasonably believe it is necessary for safety; or, when entering a secure law enforcement facility as described in the law.

Disarming CHLs as a matter of course is not authorized by law.

I am pickled tink about these particular changes...This sets the stage for what I have been fighting for and hammering at my legislators since dirt dried...

If you are going to restrict my maintaining (positive and safe handling) control of my firearm I carry under the law in this state, then you must provide a welcome, discrete and safe environment to disarm, store my firearm while I am conducting my business there...And upon completion of that business allow me to re-arm and continue with my business outside your facility...And do so without any undue scrutiny or observation...

It only got heated because people tended to focus on inconsequential matters (front license plate) and not the key point. It was about having no REASONABLE reason to disarm not why the stop was initiated or what happened in the past. I stated the younger officer was completely reasonable and professional and he did not initiate the disarming even though he was the driver and the one doing the investigation. The senior passenger was the one who behaved unprofessionally. As others stated, some senior officers still believe the public should be unarmed and that attitude needs changing.

rm9792 wrote: It is amazing the number of people on here who fixate on one thing and get on a high horse. I guess I am quite the John Dillinger without my front LP.

Just to be clear, the only reason I mentioned it was the fact that you seemed quite dismissive about the fact that you are required to display a front plate.

From the wording you used, you appeared to have no plans to remedy it and simply shrug off the requirement. You have been pulled over numerous times regarding the issue.

While it seems your normal practice to be in constant disregard of the law regarding your front license plate, you are quite upset when a single officer disregards the law when disarming you. In his case, he simply may misunderstand the law regarding the requisite circumstances needed to disarm a CHL holder, while you seem to have quite a clear understanding of the law regarding your license plate and ignore it anyway.

I am not trying to start a flame war or argument here. I simply would like you to understand my thought processes regarding my comments.

I have no issue with you Incongrunt, you have always been very friendly. Which is more dangerous, an officer handling and trying to unload a weapon he is unfamiliar with or a missing front plate? Which is worse, an officer of the law disobeying said law or a civilian disobeying a law (minor one, stay in context)? I am not perfect and I dont follow every rule handed down like a sheeple. I am safe and courteous to others which is more important to me than letters in rule books. Just because a law is there doesnt mean its right and just because a law doesnt exist doesnt mean you can do what you want. I apply the golden rule above all else. Everyone on this board has laws they rant about and dont believe are just, including me but we follow them just the same. No one on this board has lived their life without breaking some law in their life, be it simply 1mph over or going 6 days past inspection. If you read my posts I am not gotten for speeding, stop signs, red lights etc so I dont think I am a bad person. Life isnt black and white unfortunately but very much gray. I understand your thought process but had i never mentioned the plate, how would you feel then? We werent discussing my transgressions but an officer of the law, duly sworn to uphold such. The plate was just an excuse, not the true reason. If it were an issue i would have been cited.

I doubt they can determine the validity of your DL or CHL until they swipe it on the computer in the patrol car, so why should they chance it with allowing you to keep a weapon with you? Every stop that I know of personally the officer has disarmed and unloaded the firearm(s)/mag(s) and presented it back to the driver in that condition when it was over.

No department around Houston i know of has swipe capability. Thats interesting.

rm9792 wrote:No department around Houston i know of has swipe capability. Thats interesting.

Mine did in Montgomery County. You can set it up pretty cheap.

I always thought it was weird that clubs could swipe dl's but LEO couldnt.