TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

v7a wrote:

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

My comment to him about applying the same "logic" to operators of motor vehicles and just stopping all of them to see if they are licensed because the KKK, Panthers, etc, etc, might be driving around our community and endangering us, was deleted.

So, your comment, which provided facts and logic, and made his ridiculous arguments look silly... was deleted so that others could not read how idiotic the Austin PD's Chief is... shocked.

This whole thing can be summed up by my signature line.

Altho I suppose legislation is normally named after it author, I am beginning to think of Dutton's amendment as the Acevedo Amendment...

I can see the logic on both sides. On one hand, it would be difficult for a good cop to look the other way upon seeing a black gangbanger strutting down a Dove Springs sidewalk in baggy pants and a sideways baseball cap with a gun on his hip, compared to a middle age yuppie walking to his BMW at Nordstrom's in his Birkenstocks and Polo shirt, accompanied by his wife pushing a baby carriage.

On the other hand, yeah, that screams profiling. Some cops would be reasonable about it, while others would see it as "open season on open carriers" and harass people mercilessly. Even with this amendment, some may stretch credibility in coming up with reasons to detain: "uh, yeah, we've had some breakins lately...." "there's been some trouble in this area, so we're just checking..." just to have an excuse for an "investigatory detainment."

It'll be really interesting to see how all this pans out.

Ruark wrote:I can see the logic on both sides. On one hand, it would be difficult for a good cop to look the other way upon seeing a black gangbanger strutting down a Dove Springs sidewalk in baggy pants and a sideways baseball cap with a gun on his hip, compared to a middle age yuppie walking to his BMW at Nordstrom's in his Birkenstocks and Polo shirt, accompanied by his wife pushing a baby carriage.

On the other hand, yeah, that screams profiling. Some cops would be reasonable about it, while others would see it as "open season on open carriers" and harass people mercilessly. Even with this amendment, some may stretch credibility in coming up with reasons to detain: "uh, yeah, we've had some breakins lately...." "there's been some trouble in this area, so we're just checking..." just to have an excuse for an "investigatory detainment."

It'll be really interesting to see how all this pans out.

I agree w. the above, but on the other hand, the po-po have typically managed to construct an argument for reasonable suspicion to justify a stop.

It will become a moot point in a few years anyway. With advancements in facial recognition a cop will be able to pull up his smartphone, take a picture of someone, and instantly check whether they have a license.

Ruark wrote:I can see the logic on both sides. On one hand, it would be difficult for a good cop to look the other way upon seeing a black gangbanger strutting down a Dove Springs sidewalk in baggy pants and a sideways baseball cap with a gun on his hip, compared to a middle age yuppie walking to his BMW at Nordstrom's in his Birkenstocks and Polo shirt, accompanied by his wife pushing a baby carriage.

On the other hand, yeah, that screams profiling. Some cops would be reasonable about it, while others would see it as "open season on open carriers" and harass people mercilessly. Even with this amendment, some may stretch credibility in coming up with reasons to detain: "uh, yeah, we've had some breakins lately...." "there's been some trouble in this area, so we're just checking..." just to have an excuse for an "investigatory detainment."

It'll be really interesting to see how all this pans out.

If the individual was truly a gangbanger then he is probably known by the local police who would know that he does not qualify for a CHL. Sounds like probable cause.
Like someone else said earlier, criminals are not going to open carry. As much as they like attention, that's not the type of attention they want.

Most officers are just like the rest of us. So while we vehemently disagree with their bosses' brand of politics, those that are going to run out and open carry on day 1 should remember that not all departments are a reflection of their political appointee head. I believe that most officers will only go as far as they have to in order to keep their bosses off their backs. Until proven otherwise, we should continue to treat the rank-and-file offers as the good guys.

I tend to agree with you, Cajun, which is why I said I didn't feel the need for that amendment until I saw Acevedo's rant. I figured common sense would prevail, for the most part, on both sides. But that rant elevated one side to a new level. The amendment, therefore, merely brings some equality back into the equation.

AJSully421 wrote:

v7a wrote:

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

And, undoubtedly, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Probably El Paso, maybe Fort Worth and Arlington too.

Now they will have to make up some junk to be able to question an OCer. Enough complaints and it will stop.

So they don't get their population exemption therefore they try to bully open carriers so much that open carry dies in those cities? I can see the complaints piling up.

Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

This. The only problem with the amendment - no teeth.
Just like how unenforceable signs being posted by cities - previously no punishment listed if the law is broken, so municipalities posted without repercussion.

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

If I were inclined to OC (I doubt I will), I would carry a recording device along with a copy of the legislation.

jmra wrote:

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

If I were inclined to OC (I doubt I will), I would carry a recording device along with a copy of the legislation.

Comply, record and complain afterwards (if necessary) sounds like a good policy.

jmra wrote:

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

If I were inclined to OC (I doubt I will), I would carry a recording device along with a copy of the legislation.

The recording device is a common tactic used by OC activists (not just the bomb throwing OCT/OCTC types, but rational, level headed ones, too)

But if Acevedo actually does what he said he's going to do...... "I guess my response to the community is don't even call 911 because as long as the gun is in the holster we will have to wait no matter what..."

Perfect!!!!!