TexasCHLforum.com

Open Carry 2011

I have a question. Is there something different about the violation of failing to conceal a weapon that's different from say...failing to have a current vehicle inspection sticker...or vehicle registration, that would prevent an officer from just issuing a ticket at the time? I know some LEO would use some common sense give some leeway to drivers If everything else is in order, ie. the person has valid DL and CHL, what's different?

I would say reckless driving, or driving 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, or speeding in a school zone, or failing to stop for a school bus, etc. has the potential of being much more dangerous to life than someone briefly seeing an otherwise concealed handgun yet those driving violations seem to be handled by just issuing a ticket and sending the driver on their way with the legal matters to come later whereas as in handog's issue, he seemed to be handled like someone accused of armed robbery. Is it just a particular officer's prejudice against concealed carry? What motivates such an extreme response by some?

glbedd53 wrote: The notion that we just cuff em and stuff em and let the judge hash it out tomorrow or Monday is ridiculous.

Yes, Thank you!

And the notion that if the cop is busy or about to get off their shift dictates weather or not he/She makes an arrest is disturbing.

JNMAR - Well said.

Handog-"Tis a ill wind indeed, that blows no man good" Thanks

With OC this would have been totally different, the blissninny could NOT have endangered lives and harmed others without a 'false report' being backfired on her! (hopefully!)

03Lightningrocks wrote:This whole deal is ridiculous. I also believe the arrest was made as a show for the crowd. After making complete fools of themselves, it would be pretty darned hard to let the OP walk.

I can just picture them telling the 911 caller don’t worry Mam, We've taken him off the streets. The threat is over. Makes me want to puke!

Can we get a puking animation added to the smilies?

JNMAR wrote:I have a question. Is there something different about the violation of failing to conceal a weapon that's different from say...failing to have a current vehicle inspection sticker...or vehicle registration, that would prevent an officer from just issuing a ticket at the time? I know some LEO would use some common sense give some leeway to drivers If everything else is in order, ie. the person has valid DL and CHL, what's different?

I would say reckless driving, or driving 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, or speeding in a school zone, or failing to stop for a school bus, etc. has the potential of being much more dangerous to life than someone briefly seeing an otherwise concealed handgun yet those driving violations seem to be handled by just issuing a ticket and sending the driver on their way with the legal matters to come later whereas as in handog's issue, he seemed to be handled like someone accused of armed robbery. Is it just a particular officer's prejudice against concealed carry? What motivates such an extreme response by some?

Reckless driving is a Class B misdemeanor...so it stands out from the other traffic issues mentioned.

"Extreme" response is due to a weapon being involved.

Personally I have no problem with the felony stop with guns drawn. I didn’t like it. It's the number of guns. According to the report there were 11 LEOs all pointing their weapons at me. That’s extreme. I can see 3 or 4 but after that it was pure bravado.

handog wrote:it was pure bravado.

I'm stacking the odds as much in my favor as possible because I want to go home at the end of the shift. You have NO IDEA what the mindset of those officers was because you've never been in that situation.

I'm not intending this to come across as a personal attack...and I understand you're bitter about what happened, but criticizing a reaction like this and attacking the character of the responding officers - which you known only through a written report - doesn't sit well with me.

gigag04 wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:If a LEO is in doubt about the law? If a LEO is in doubt about the law, he is not doing his job. Knowing the law is his/her job.

Which law? Every law in Texas?

Nope. But when making an arrest, the LEO should be able to state clearly what the law is, and just how the suspect violated it.

chabouk wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

glbedd53 wrote:If a LEO is in doubt about the law? If a LEO is in doubt about the law, he is not doing his job. Knowing the law is his/her job.

Which law? Every law in Texas?

Nope. But when making an arrest, the LEO should be able to state clearly what the law is, and just how the suspect violated it.

He/She does. It's called a "Probable Cause Statement" and it has to be completed before the end of the shift as it goes to court the next morning with arrestee for bail setting etc.

gigag04 wrote: I'm stacking the odds as much in my favor as possible because I want to go home at the end of the shift. .

Then....using this logic your policy should be:

Immediately disarm ALL CHL's, that way....you're only person with a weapon.

Follow up...by cuffing the person(s) and put them in the back of your unit, (call it detainment for your safety).

Once the stop is completed (sans arrest), make sure you unload the weapon and keep the ammo (there is nothing in law preventing this and it helps ensure you get to go home at end of the day).

If the vehicle has a trunk....I recommend you place the weapon there and close it. Then your parting instruction could be something like "Don't reacquire your weapon until I am out of sight".

Pretty much guarantees your "safety" huh?

I don't want LEO exposed to any more danger than is reasonable or expected of the job, but I fear... current training and attitude about officer safety... lends itself to the trampling of citizens rights. The theme seems to be (Officer Safety first, foremost and at any cost)??????

flintknapper wrote:

gigag04 wrote: I'm stacking the odds as much in my favor as possible because I want to go home at the end of the shift. .

Then....using this logic your policy should be:

Immediately disarm ALL CHL's, that way....you're only person with a weapon.

Follow up...by cuffing the person(s) and put them in the back of your unit, (call it detainment for your safety).

Once the stop is completed (sans arrest), make sure you unload the weapon and keep the ammo (there is nothing in law preventing this and it helps ensure you get to go home at end of the day).

If the vehicle has a trunk....I recommend you place the weapon there and close it. Then your parting instruction could be something like "Don't reacquire your weapon until I am out of sight".

Pretty much guarantees your "safety" huh?

I don't want LEO exposed to any more danger than is reasonable or expected of the job, but I fear... current training and attitude about officer safety... lends itself to the trampling of citizens rights. The theme seems to be (Officer Safety first, foremost and at any cost)??????

Only after I get in a few punches off camera.


The call came in on a guy that exposed his weapon. They don't know who he is or why he has a weapon. I'm not going to play wild wild west gunslinger and have a holster race with an unknown subject. I'm going to bring all my friends until we get it sorted out.

Different scenario from a traffic stop where I can approach tactically and clear the cabin of your vehicle before I talk to you. Then if you decide to produce a handgun I have already set it up so that you are at a disadvantage.

As far as officer safety - I'm not sure how there is a "TRAMPLING" of citizen's rights...I think that may be another thread, and I would be happy to discuss it with you if you start one.

gigag04 wrote:
Only after I get in a few punches off camera.

Freudian Slip???

03Lightningrocks wrote:

gigag04 wrote:
Only after I get in a few punches off camera.

Freudian Slip???

Just being equally ridiculous.

gigag04 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

gigag04 wrote:
Only after I get in a few punches off camera.

Freudian Slip???

Just being equally ridiculous.

Thank Goodness. You worried me for a minute there.