TexasCHLforum.com

I use to work for an un-named state agency and did some research into requests that came in. What you want to ask for is 'documents containing information regarding the number of CHL holders stopped, the number of handguns seized from a CHL holder, the number of ....... and / or the number of........'. You can then use these to do your own analysis and produce the statistics. You may get lucky (might as well include it in your request) and ask for documents containing the desired statistics. I can tell you we did our best to get what was requested, but didn't guess on intent or what they might have really wanted, just what they asked for! Good luck!

E.Marquez wrote:

Bob in Big D wrote:Maybe all you need is ....how many guns taken from CHL's were found to be stolen when run thu NCIC, regardless of how they were acquired by DPS.

Right,, but if it a document request that must be made, and not a data request.. I would have to request a specific document that would have that data.... What single document is that....???

No you can ask for documents containing 'the number of Chi holders that ........' or similar. You can't ask for 'how many chl holders were arrested in July 2011 for unlicensed carry of a weapon'. Actually you can ask, but if no document contains that data you won't get a return. It has to be specific enough that there is likely hood a document has what or part of what you want, but general enough that a hit is likely but you will have to do some analysis across multiple documents.

You don't have to request a specific document such as 'Agency Policy number abc123 - leave of absence request', but it needs to request specific enough information that a given document does or does not meet the request criteria. Think Google search...

If I understand you want ask for....
How many CHL's were stopped in Texas?
How many we're armed?
How many had the serial number on their weapon checked?
How many that were checked came back as stolen?

Just be careful. I can see the media getting this info and using it against us.

mikedude wrote:Just be careful. I can see the media getting this info and using it against us.

Good point......no telling how they would spin it. But I would like to think if there is a problem we should know about it before the media blindsides us.
Personally, I think it is a very small percentage.

Of course I have no hard statistics, but my bet is that the number of CHL firearms that were checked and subsequently found as stolen would be a "round" number. (Zero is about the 'roundest' number I know -- literally.)

E.Marquez wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: Being able to articulate why the information needed is for the public good is usually key to getting the information for free and in a timely manner.

Thanks for the tips..
So your saying I should use some justification other then " Data to be used to support this checking of CHL's weapon serial numbers to be unconstitutional, and possible a criminal act.

In Texas law, the agency is not allowed to ask for any justification or use of any information requested under a public information request. You simply need to make a written request to the agency and they have ten business days to answer. There is a charge allowed if the work to produce the information is excessive or the cost of copying the information is. If there will be a charge, the agency must provide you with an estimate within the ten days. If there is a dispute over whether or not the information requested is public, the agency must tell you within ten days that it is requesting clearance from the AG.

The way to get the information you want is to make as specific a request as possible, in writing, to the agency's open records office. DPS's policy and procedures for requests are on this web page: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/pia.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

mikedude wrote: SNIP U lost me there. Are u a LEO, or just somebody that has been stopped many times or what we would call a "frequent flyer."

I'll take the liberty of answering you for him, mikedude, and I will refrain from making any comments about LEO attitudes, my having been one myself for many years.

E.Marquez has been in the US Army Infantry from 1985 to present; now Sergeant Major, 1st CAV Division, Fort Hood. As I have never had the honor of meeting him I should not speculate on how many tours he has had in combat, but I will stick my neck out and guess that it has been more than one.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=60112&p=738319&hil ... or#p738222" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

sjfcontrol wrote:Of course I have no hard statistics, but my bet is that the number of CHL firearms that were checked and subsequently found as stolen would be a "round" number. (Zero is about the 'roundest' number I know -- literally.)

I would bet you're right on

[tinfoil hat on]
Are we sure they are just checking against NCIC or are they starting a State level firearm database?
[tinfoil hat off]

mikedude wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

mikedude wrote:I guess one can just flash their CHL badge and all is good

Makes as much sense as LEO's treating a citizen as a thief, with no PC or RS that they have stolen anything. Or treating them like a violent criminal, when they have not committed a violent crime.

Im very ok with LEO having a legal right to disarm a CHL'er when needed.
Im not ok with them doing it, because it's thursday.. or because I had a tail light out... because I called 911 to report a crime.. or well because of anything other them presenting a articulable threat to the LEO's life. A THREAT,, an actual threat.. Not the possibility of a threat, but a tangible threat.

It's only a hard concept to grasp, for some of those on the other side of the blue line......The STATS show... CHL's are not a general threat to a LEO during a contact.... but, hey, lets not let tangible facts get in the way of paranoia.

Gotta disagree to a point. IF I fear for my safety, and have a lawful detention I am taking the gun. This is not being scared, but something one that is not a LEO cannot understand. That is the nature of the work. I will not wait until there is an actual threat to my safety as that will be too late. You can be sure I will be able to articulate the facts and probably have video/audio of the contact as well. Downside is I will be second guessed on internet forums by people that were not there . I get paid to do a job and go home to our families. I have been in a fatal shooting and let me tell you it goes from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye, heck faster sometimes. As a reminder I have NEVER taken a chl holders gun in TWO states that I have worked.

For the most part we are on the same page here.

That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

Texas Sheepdog wrote:That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

At last, a first hand report of a policy that confirms.. thank you. Care to tell us what department this is?

I dislike that policy greatly
Being assumed to be a thief and a safety concern based on a one size fits all policy is at least disrespectful, hopefully illegal and unethical.

Disarming not as the law gives a officer the right to, when there is safety concern that can be articulated, justifying the disarming. ,,, and then worse, leaving that citizen unarmed after the questionable search is over.. is a horrid way to treat a US citizen as a matter of policy.
I understand if the contact is a serious one, violence, DUI, ect..... but as a overall policy.. wow, that concerns me greatly.

I stand corrected, I had up until now believed it was a personal officer decision…. Not a department policy.

Texas Sheepdog wrote: That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

Glad you can laugh about it. The law says we can be disarmed for safety, not just because someone makes it policy.

Disarming law abiding CHLers is nothing to get your yucks over.

Anygunanywhere

Texas Sheepdog wrote: That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

I don't appreciate being referred to as a "suspect". I may have been charged with a Class C misdemeanor for going a little too fast a time or two, but I am not a suspect. Use of such language is offensive to me (and I'm sure many others here as well), as I have never committed any kind of crime beyond some kind of traffic violation.