TexasCHLforum.com

It's may be treated as a privilege by some but it remains a Right. What it is doesn't change because of how some view it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... able+right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

premedit8ed wrote:At this point yes everything is a privilege is a million dollar home a right or a privilege? If you commit a crime the goverment can take away your so called "rights" so tell me if it's your right to open carry why don't you instead of waiting for the goverment to grant you that privilege. Exactly

premedit8ed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

premedit8ed wrote:All open carry really has to do with is people wanting to look "cool" walking around with a gun on their hip.

Um. Not really.

Then why not just get a chl and be done with it. Carrying a handgun Is a privilege not a right. So why does open carry matter to people so much when they can just get a chl.... because they want to be seen with a gun on their hip

Where do you get that it is a privilege and not a right? How do you know what others are thinking?

I see your point. I wonder if the author of the bill is trying to make sure the guns are holstered and not just stuck in someone's waistband or carried in their hand. Maybe the wording just the wording that is throwing you off?

A-R wrote: Currently if a LEO has made contact with, for example, 2 or 3 subjects who are all armed, he can temporarily disarm them for his safety if he can articulate why (outnumbered, previous interaction, known history, articulable body language etc).

Now, put yourself in the LEOs ' shoes: you're out alone at night with 3 armed subjects who are acting squirrelly ... would YOU feel safe if you were required to let them each keep their guns until you developed enough info to basically arrest them? Or would you prefer to temporarily disarm them while you conducted your investigation, alone?

Certainly LEOs past, present, and future have abused this authority to disarm. But that's not reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Been thinking about your comments quoted here. I think you make a very valid argument. However, in my mind, there is a difference between probable cause to arrest and probable cause (still not sure that is exact correct wording) to disarm. In my mind, the scenario you present in this quote equates to probable cause to disarm (reasonably believes it is necessary for safety).

I believe many officers, as in my case recently when stopped for a light out, the officer promptly returned my chl when I handed him my ID without mentioning anything about my gun. On the other hand, I believe there are quite a few officers believe just the presence of a gun creates the reasonableness necessary to disarm a citizen that is legally carrying.

As time goes on, I believe things will get better. However, until then, I believe better language in the law or better training is needed. I also do not believe people should be subjected to being disarmed even if it is only temporary for the duration of the traffic stop unless it really is reasonably necessary for safety.

Here is a bit of an outlandish extreme scenario but I think it illustrates my point. If all that is considered is officer and others safety, why not just execute a felony stop on all traffic stops. Get them out of the car, prone them out, cuff them, frisk them, disarm them and put them in the patrol car while the officer completes the ticket writing process. That way there should be much less chance of anyone getting hurt. Absurd I know but it is the opposite end of the spectrum from "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

I just think it could be tweaked to clarify when it is justified to disarm someone.

I understand and appreciate your position. I just have personal knowledge of some officers that make it a standard practice to disarm all chl's when they stop them. We've argued about it and the fact they have to leave the person to go back to their car to write the ticket and leave the person unattended is in their mind creates reasonable belief is necessary for their safety. I disagree with this whole heartily.

I will have to think about the wording but I like the idea. Many cops take the current wording as carte blanche approval to disarm someone even if they have no reason to believe it necessary.

How about a separate sign similar in size and wording for OC? If both open and concealed carry are to be banned then it takes two big ugly signs? Honors property rights and makes it somewhat less aesthetically attractive to ban guns completely.