sjfcontrol wrote:NcongruNt wrote:sjfcontrol wrote:hirundo82 wrote:
No, but HPD isn't a big fan of CHLs.
Neither is APD
I've never had APD give me any grief over my CHL. They act surprised that I'd actually be carrying every time that I inform them that I am (when they ask after I present my CHL), but they've never reacted negatively.
Hmm, I was thinking this was Austin, but as I recall now, I believe it was Round Rock.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Round Rock police, I can believe. My past dealings with them (pre-CHL in 2003) do not lead me to believe that they tend to leave much of the public they deal with feeling good about the interaction. I'm sure this does not describe all officers in the organization, but I've heard many accounts from friends who have had interactions with them that reflect the same kind of authoritarian attitude in the way they treat folks they detain.
Specifically in my case, I met some friends who were out of town at the hotel they were staying at, since I worked in Round Rock at the time and was just getting off work. I parked in the hotel parking lot and met up with my friends. We decided to take their car and we went to go eat. I came back to find 2 or 3 Round Rock police cars with lights on and the police searching through my vehicle.
I walk up and ask them why they were searching my van, and the officer in charge responds that they're "not searching" my van, while I look at the van with all the doors opened up and them looking through it. I asked why they were doing whatever they wanted to call what it was they were doing, and they said that there had been "vandalism in the area", no further explanation. Since my van was unlocked and had out of state plates (I'd just purchased it from a friend, and IL plates didn't pull up in their system), they decided that was some sort of PC to look inside my van , ostensibly to identify the owner.
Now this all may seem somewhat plausible, until you consider that there was no way the van met any description of they would have been given regarding a vehicle connected with any vandalism:
Additionally, they'd already spoken with the lady at the front desk who had told them that I met my friends in the lobby earlier and then we left. I had a valid and verified reason to be there, so why go through the van? At any rate, shortly after they showed up, they all took off except for the one officer I was talking with, who gave me an explanation of his PC (which didn't really make logical sense to me) and handed me his card and left.
I had an e-mail exchange with him after that, in which he gave me a long explanation that he was mainly going through my van to identify the owner and "protect my property", which I still don't completely buy. This included the fact that they'd already arrested some car burglars that night, but not really any explanation of why my van was targeted for this action other than the fact that the plates did not pull up and my doors were unlocked. Had he taken a short time to speak with me frankly about it when I was there in person, I would have come away feeling much better about our interaction. Maybe I was younger and simply upset, but that is part of the public they have to interact with. I left that interaction feeling my property had been violated without a good reason.
Sorry to get off-topic here.
Regarding the bill, I also doubt it will get to the floor or have a correlating version written on the other side of the legislature. I haven't read through the text of the bill yet, but I'm wary of anything that does a simple "search and replace" to remove the term concealed, as I have a feeling that has potential for a backfire. With the submission so late in the session, it seems there's the potential for amendments without adequate time to fix them, and we could end up with a bill that may hurt us more than it helps us.