TexasCHLforum.com

It's frustrating how people continually try to twist things and circumvent the law.

http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... 91360.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That’s right. Under House Bill 910, police are barred from asking anyone “whether a person possesses a handgun license.”

Maybe even regardless of age.

Look, passing open carry wasn’t supposed to be a big deal. The idea was just to let nearly 1 million Texans with concealed-handgun licenses choose where they holster a gun.

But this amendment is a very big deal. If nobody ever has to worry about being stopped to show a license, that’s closer to the unlicensed-carry freedom promoted by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

“Where do you think they got the idea?” Stickland asked slyly Tuesday. That was after a leader of the Dallas-based Come and Take It Texas open-carry group wrote on social media: “We unintentionally just got unlicensed open carry.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Salty1 wrote:If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

Although I've made some rather expletive posts about "papers, please" encounters, this is absolutely true. The vast majority of cops I've met have been very courteous and professional, and the last thing in the world I would want to do is make their day more stressful than it already is. I think a good idea (if the amendment stands) is to decide exactly how you would respond to an unjustified ID request.

v7a wrote:STAR-TELEGRAM:

Alice Tripp of the Texas State Rifle Association said that she likes the “intent” of the amendment but that the wording needs a look.

timtheteacher wrote:I would have no problem showing my card. Not a big deal to me..

I'm pretty sure most people would not mind showing their card once every 5 years or so.

Would you mind showing your card to 5 different officers every time you walk through downtown Austin?

(If you think that's exaggerating you either don't know how many LEOs there are in Austin or you haven't read Acevedo's rant)

v7a wrote:STAR-TELEGRAM:

Alice Tripp of the Texas State Rifle Association said that she likes the “intent” of the amendment but that the wording needs a look.

I just confirmed with Alice Tripp that she did not make this statement! Bud Kennedy made this up on his own because she wouldn't give him a statement. Edward R. Murrow he isn't.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

v7a wrote:STAR-TELEGRAM:

Alice Tripp of the Texas State Rifle Association said that she likes the “intent” of the amendment but that the wording needs a look.

I just confirmed with Alice Tripp that she did not make this statement! Bud Kennedy made this up on his own because she wouldn't give him a statement. Edward R. Murrow he isn't.

Chas.

That's quite an understatement.

v7a wrote:

timtheteacher wrote:I would have no problem showing my card. Not a big deal to me..

I'm pretty sure most people would not mind showing their card once every 5 years or so.

Would you mind showing your card to 5 different officers every time you walk through downtown Austin?

(If you think that's exaggerating you either don't know how many LEOs there are in Austin or you haven't read Acevedo's rant)

I get your point, but as for me, I would not have a problem having to show it ten or fifteen times a day as long as it's a show it and "have a nice day" encounter. And for what it's worth, I avoid Austin like I avoid N.Y. or California. But, like I said, I get your point and the point of many on here of the hassle or legality of it. I just think like was mentioned before, take it as an opportunity to show we as CHL'ers are law abiding good folks.

Salty1 wrote:If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

Well put Salty. My thoughts as well. Thank you.

When it comes to dealing with cops it comes down to attitude. Do you see them as the enemy or ally? Do they see you as a citizen or criminal. Attitude dictates how one treats the other. Bad attitude from either one leads to a negative encounter that perpetuates the negative attitudes.

Treat each other with respect As people, including cops, get used to open carry, it will become less of an issue. I have a wallet that has two see thru ID slots. It will be easy for me to show my chl and move on. If it becomes too common or I believe the cops are abusing the system, I'll file a complaint. If they become too aggregious in their actions, I file a civil rights suit.

Jumping to the Nazi Germany comparisons such as some of the extremist do is a bit of premature overreaction in my opinion.

Help me out here. Maybe I am overlooking something, or y'all have overlooked something. So the proposed law says an officer can't inquire of the citizen if he is license to open carry. This might not be a problem. The officer sees a guy meandering down the street and he surmises that the citizen is intoxicated. He is still allowed to ask for identification. Not the chl license perhaps, but the drivers license. He calls dispatch, passes on the subject's name, dob, etc., and the dispatcher reports back the information on the screen, which includes chl license information, right? If no license, and the subject has a 1911 on his hip, then we have a felony, don't we? Nobody had to ask the guy to present the chl. The police should already know based on the other ID.

gdanaher wrote:Help me out here. Maybe I am overlooking something, or y'all have overlooked something. So the proposed law says an officer can't inquire of the citizen if he is license to open carry. This might not be a problem. The officer sees a guy meandering down the street and he surmises that the citizen is intoxicated. He is still allowed to ask for identification. Not the chl license perhaps, but the drivers license. He calls dispatch, passes on the subject's name, dob, etc., and the dispatcher reports back the information on the screen, which includes chl license information, right? If no license, and the subject has a 1911 on his hip, then we have a felony, don't we? Nobody had to ask the guy to present the chl. The police should already know based on the other ID.

If the officer surmises the citizen is intoxicated while carrying, he now has probably cause for a crime. Making the scenario a moot point.

gdanaher wrote:Help me out here. Maybe I am overlooking something, or y'all have overlooked something. So the proposed law says an officer can't inquire of the citizen if he is license to open carry. This might not be a problem. The officer sees a guy meandering down the street and he surmises that the citizen is intoxicated. He is still allowed to ask for identification. Not the chl license perhaps, but the drivers license. He calls dispatch, passes on the subject's name, dob, etc., and the dispatcher reports back the information on the screen, which includes chl license information, right? If no license, and the subject has a 1911 on his hip, then we have a felony, don't we? Nobody had to ask the guy to present the chl. The police should already know based on the other ID.

A cop can stop someone if he has reasonable suspicion to do so. Then he can ask for ID. When asked for ID , by law, we are supposed to provide both DL and CHL.

The point being, cops are not supposed to stop you for no reason just to verify your ID or CHL status. Openly wearing a gun is no more a justification to stop and ID someone than merely driving a car .If someone is obviously drunk and wearing a gun openly that would justify contact and ID at the very least.

If I open carry and am asked about my CHL status early on, I plan to cooperate. Down the road, I won't be so inclined without some. discussion.

Years ago, Texas had just passed a new law making it legal to not wear a motorcycle helmet. I typically wore one (and still typically do), but late one night I was leaving the Dallas Convention Center after working a computer networking gig, and left my helmet in the booth. I remembered it when I got to my bike, but the door had locked behind me and I couldn't get back in. I then remembered the new law, and went ahead and rode home.

A few blocks from my house (in my own town) around midnight, I got stopped. I looked down to see if I was speeding (not an unheard of act for me) and saw that I wasn't, so I couldn't figure out why I was being stopped. I got out my driver's license and proof of insurance, so had them ready when he asked. He then asked for proof of health insurance (I showed him my group card). Then I asked him why I had been stopped. He said to ensure I met the requirements to ride without a helmet.

It bothered me. I didn't feel it was right that a policeman should be able to stop someone who was following the law, just to see if they might not be. I called the police chief the next morning, and complained. He assured me it would be addressed, and a week later a desk sergent called me and said that it had been addressed during roll call a number of times, that officers were told not to stop motorcycle riders solely to check on no-helmet requirements.

A few years later (2009), there were several new amendments passed concerning Texas helmet laws, and one of them specifically was one that "Prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining a person who is the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan."

Apparently, there were enough complaints of actions similar to what I experienced (without follow up by reasonable police departments) that someone felt the amendment was needed. It was a good amendment. This is a good amendment. In my opinion, only oppressive leaning police departments would be against such an amendment.

Policemen should not be permitted to use following the letter of the law as probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone is breaking the law. It is neither.