First off I would not have gone to this event in the first place even if I had the chance. Had I gone I would have left upon this question and commands.
My wife and some of her family and friends decided to signed up to join a group of people at a church to go feed the homeless and show care people in those areas. They are doing so on the east side of town from 9 pm-1:30 am. While reading this out loud to me last night, she read off things painting a very dangerous picture. Which knowing where they were going I didn't need one painted. It basically said stay with the group no weapons or jewelry etc. Stated police will be near by. I stated my case on this from last night up until she left. Falling on deaf ears she went. She just sent me a text stating their will be a police officer assigned to each group. While the group was together Police made an announcement asking if anyone had their CHL. Pending answers they informed them to disarm prior to leaving with their groups. She told me only one man spoke up and said he was not armed. I can understand to a point their reasoning behind it only to have a fair mindset towards LEO's, but I would have left immediately. I just am having a hard time with the way in which it was approached I suppose.
1s1k52 wrote:First off I would not have gone to this event in the first place even if I had the chance. Had I gone I would have left upon this question and commands.
My wife and some of her family and friends decided to signed up to join a group of people at a church to go feed the homeless and show care people in those areas. They are doing so on the east side of town from 9 pm-1:30 am. While reading this out loud to me last night, she read off things painting a very dangerous picture. Which knowing where they were going I didn't need one painted. It basically said stay with the group no weapons or jewelry etc. Stated police will be near by. I stated my case on this from last night up until she left. Falling on deaf ears she went. She just sent me a text stating their will be a police officer assigned to each group. While the group was together Police made an announcement asking if anyone had their CHL. Pending answers they informed them to disarm prior to leaving with their groups. She told me only one man spoke up and said he was not armed. I can understand to a point their reasoning behind it only to have a fair mindset towards LEO's, but I would have left immediately. I just am having a hard time with the way in which it was approached I suppose.
Unless they were going into a prohibited area, I don't believe the police have the authority to require you to disarm. At least, I can't find any in the CHL laws or admin code.
1s1k52 wrote:First off I would not have gone to this event in the first place even if I had the chance. Had I gone I would have left upon this question and commands.
My wife and some of her family and friends decided to signed up to join a group of people at a church to go feed the homeless and show care people in those areas. They are doing so on the east side of town from 9 pm-1:30 am. While reading this out loud to me last night, she read off things painting a very dangerous picture. Which knowing where they were going I didn't need one painted. It basically said stay with the group no weapons or jewelry etc. Stated police will be near by. I stated my case on this from last night up until she left. Falling on deaf ears she went. She just sent me a text stating their will be a police officer assigned to each group. While the group was together Police made an announcement asking if anyone had their CHL. Pending answers they informed them to disarm prior to leaving with their groups. She told me only one man spoke up and said he was not armed. I can understand to a point their reasoning behind it only to have a fair mindset towards LEO's, but I would have left immediately. I just am having a hard time with the way in which it was approached I suppose.
Unless they were going into a prohibited area, I don't believe the police have the authority to require you to disarm. At least, I can't find any in the CHL laws or admin code.
I couldn't either. Not that I am sleeping much tonight anyways but I got out of bed just to look for it. So my researching "skills" are not what they could be. I keep a paper copy on hand I printed last year. I skimmed it then googled. Basically came up with scenarios on individual basis actions.
Concealed is concealed. Unless you're going to enter a building which is posted 30.06, concealed is concealed. If a cop randomly asks if I have a CHL, I'm not going to answer the question unless he asks for ID. I'd rather get in "trouble" for carrying my gun if I end up having to use it, than to hope that the cop can drop his donut fast enough to be useful and go for his own gun.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
I would have ignored the officer, unless of course I was only there because my wife insisted that I go. In that case I would have told the wife time to go.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
jmra wrote:I would have ignored the officer, unless of course I was only there because my wife insisted that I go. In that case I would have told the wife time to go.
The Annoyed Man wrote:Concealed is concealed. Unless you're going to enter a building which is posted 30.06, concealed is concealed. If a cop randomly asks if I have a CHL, I'm not going to answer the question unless he asks for ID. I'd rather get in "trouble" for carrying my gun if I end up having to use it, than to hope that the cop can drop his donut fast enough to be useful and go for his own gun.
Donuts are so 80s...here on nights we live on tacos, cheeseburgers, and coffee. But all of drastically increase my first shot time if in my hands at the time.
Buy yes - I would ignore it too...and I do have a CHL so....
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
This brings up another question. What about on a police ride-a-long?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
I did not see if you specified which agency this was. Houston Police can no longer work the gun shows at the GRB. This move is due to the HPD has a policy that their officers cannot enforce "house rules". In this case the house rules prohibit concealed carry at the GRB a city owned facility.
I am a former LEO, and this case flies in face of state law as the story is relayed here.
This brings up another question. What about on a police ride-a-long?
I don't know of any agency that will allow a civilian ride a long to knowingly carry a weapon. It is more about liability than anything else. Plus it is foreseeable that as a ride a long you would be going into prohibited places if the officer permits you to get out of the car.
WHen I had a ride a long I would how you where the back up guns were in the car. If someone started shooting they did not know you were not a police officer, so shoot back. But my ride a longs were rarely allowed to get out of the car.
"What? Pardon me, my hearing was damaged while serving aboard destroyers training Marine spotters for Vietnam and I'm a little hard of hearing. Guess it doesn't matter. Oh well..."
"Come and take it."
I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This brings up another question. What about on a police ride-a-long?
You will not be allowed to carry a weapon on a ride along in most places per dept. policy, and there wont' be a 30.06 sign on the police car. You will have the choice, either ride unarmed or don't ride. Ride alongs can be deadly as well. There have been ride alongs shot before. I had a ride along riding with me when I got into into a fatal officer involved shooting.
I really don't see why the cops are getting slammed in this topic aside from it being on this forum . The CHURCH LEADERS made an arrangement with the police and told their members to not carry a weapon. The members then agreed to this by going. If anybody has issue with this, maybe they should be asked why the church leaders agreed to this? At that point, one had the choice - Do I want to participate or not? Nobody made anybody go feed the bums and the choice was theirs to either comply with the groups instructions or not. It sounds like the police kept their end and went with the group to protect them.
This brings up another question. What about on a police ride-a-long?
You will not be allowed to carry a weapon on a ride along in most places per dept. policy, and there wont' be a 30.06 sign on the police car. You will have the choice, either ride unarmed or don't ride. Ride alongs can be deadly as well. There have been ride alongs shot before. I had a ride along riding with me when I got into into a fatal officer involved shooting.
I really don't see why the cops are getting slammed in this topic aside from it being on this forum . The CHURCH LEADERS made an arrangement with the police and told their members to not carry a weapon. The members then agreed to this by going. If anybody has issue with this, maybe they should be asked why the church leaders agreed to this? At that point, one had the choice - Do I want to participate or not? Nobody made anybody go feed the bums and the choice was theirs to either comply with the groups instructions or not. It sounds like the police kept their end and went with the group to protect them.
If that is the case, the church leaders should have asked the question and made the request, not the LEO.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
texanjoker, It wasn't my intent to slam the LEO or pile on. Was just curious since it wasn't covered by statute. So far, I've chosen not to ride along.
I do have some concern when LEO get involved in enforcing rules rather than laws. I also don't understand why you make a blanket statement about members of the forum such as you did when I'm sure you don't appreciate blanket statements about the LEO community.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
jmra wrote:
If that is the case, the church leaders should have asked the question and made the request, not the LEO.
When the LEO chose to ask the question, he opened himself up to comments about the actions and words HE CHOSE as an adult who is competent to manage his own affairs.
If you're alleging this particular LEO is not physically or mentally competent, maybe he should be the one not allowed to carry a gun. That's not bashing. You can replace LEO with Preacher or Doctor if you want to make this general principle, instead of discussion about this specific incident.
She just sent me a text stating their will be a police officer assigned to each group. While the group was together Police made an announcement asking if anyone had their CHL. Pending answers they informed them to disarm prior to leaving with their groups. She told me only one man spoke up and said he was not armed. I can understand to a point their reasoning behind it only to have a fair mindset towards LEO's, but I would have left immediately. I just am having a hard time with the way in which it was approached I suppose.
I like the way you think.
. The CHURCH LEADERS made an arrangement with the police and told their members to not carry a weapon. The members then agreed to this by going. If anybody has issue with this, maybe they should be asked why the church leaders agreed to this? At that point, one had the choice - Do I want to participate or not? Nobody made anybody go feed the bums and the choice was theirs to either comply with the groups instructions or not. It sounds like the police kept their end and went with the group to protect them.
