TexasCHLforum.com

tlt wrote: With respect to how an officer would interact with an Open Carry person, should be no different than he would interact with a conceal carry person. That is, to say that an officer has every right, but not an obligation to talk to a licensee if he or she feels it is warranted... The interaction, should be limited however to a request for a license and identification. It would be the officers discretion if he needs to "call it in" or take any additional actions.

Officer should only be stopping OCers if they look like they have been or are about to commit a crime, like the article you mentioned stated. Some officers might not like people OCing and they feel that it warrants a discussion, but it does not. The mere sight of a weapon should not be probable cause to ask for Identification. Reminds me of "got your papers?"

Like a normal stop, once you identify yourself as a license holder, the officer may disarm you, at his or her discretion. I have had interactions with an LEO, where I told the LEO I'm CHL holder, by presenting my license and verbally. The officer may politely disarms me, and after our encounter, allows me to retrieve my weapon. I respect our LEO's and would never want them to be forced to feel uncomfortable, this puts them on the defensive, and that is where mistakes are made. It baffles me why people intentionally bait and harass officers, their job is difficult enough.

If I have identified myself as a license holder and produced license, there should be no disarming because that should be the end of the conversation. Handling of a loaded firearm in public is much more likely to involve an accident than a conversation with a license holder with weapon in holster.

The key here, do not put a LEO in a position where he or she feels threatened, or provide a reason for an interaction at all. If a citizen calls and reports a "man with a gun" the 911 dispatch should be trained to ask the questions. What is he doing, is he carrying it in a holster, has there been some threatening action besides simply carrying a weapon in a holster. The scope of what the officer can do gives him some power, but needs to be limited in such a way that personal attacks opinions or lectures about open carry are frowned upon.

If a citizen makes a call for MWAG, those questions should be asked. If there has been no threatening behavior and the OCer has not done anything but carry a firearm, 911 dispatch should tell the citizen that OCing is legal in Texas, and no officer will be sent unless threatening behavior has been observed.

An additional consideration, which may be quite a stretch would be to allow CHL holders to police themselves. So, for example if there was an Open Carry individual any CHL holder could request to see their license, if in particular there was a reason to be suspicious of their actions.

Um, no. I see people driving all the time like idiots, but I don't have the right to ask to see their license at a redlight. If you come up to me asking for my license, I will literally laugh in your face. If you see someone doing something criminal and carrying a gun, you should definitely be giving the police a call and not performing your own investigation.

...So where does this leave us. The common sense approach, if a compromise is needed, would be to accept a Level II requirement, which can be worded in a way, that makes sense. Something in the requirements worded like "1 device or feature, of any nature designed to retain a handgun in the holster." You could further that, by specifying that the trigger guard be covered for example.

Common sense says to leave it up to the carrier on what kind of holster and retention to use. We are not chasing down criminals or in their presence all the time, so the chance of a civilian getting disarmed is already many times lower than officers. Another thing, how would officer's enforce this? Let them draw your weapon from your holster? Can you say Negligent Discharge?