TexasCHLforum.com

handog wrote:Texas Sheepdog wrote:
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

Abraham wrote:I'm thinking the word "imposter"...

Round Rock PD. My guess. LOL

Anyone know how many police agencies there are in TX? I was starting to think of a FOIA request to every one concerning their "policy" of disarming ALL CHLs on contact. A logistical nightmare to be sure, but maybe our membership could accomplish it by distributing the labor. Or we could get someone with enough standing to ask the Attorney General for an opinion and hope it comes out right.

Texas Sheepdog wrote: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

So your policy stands in direct violation of the law?

The law says that an officer may disarm a CHL holder if that officer reasonably believes it is necessary for safety, that puts the onus on the officer, not department policy.

Sounds like it's time for an Attorney General decision to stop the rampant abuse of the law by departments using "policy" instead of the reasonable belief of the officer on the scene.

E.Marquez wrote:

jimlongley wrote:The policy folks keep referring to is the all to frequent statement by an officer that the reason they are disarming the CHL at the traffic stop, and running the serial number, is that it is their policy.

all to frequent statement ??
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60179&start=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Im not seeing any pattern pointing to that at this point.

Can you link me to the 1st person reports that state the officer disarmed teh CHL'er as a matter of policy? (NOTE, i do remember reading ONE such thread,,,so please understand Im not poking at you.. I know it has been reported.. it's the " frequent statement " part Im not so sure of.. and the reason I stated that other thread linked above.

Thanks

.

No, I do not keep track of such things, but I have read it many times.

E.Marquez wrote: . . . There in is the issue .. WHAT POLICY? What is this policy folks keep referring to.
There is no LAW, nor Code we have seen and DPS states there is NO POLICY.. So what policy are you referring to?

There is a Texas Penal Code which gives the officer authority in a very broad manner to disarm you.. I don't like it, but it is there.
There is a Criminal code which directs the officer to do a NCIC check for stolen property when a firearm is in his possession for any reason... I don't like it, but it is there.

I think our argument is in the code and law... Not a mystery policy that no one has ever seen.

Yes, DPS shows no policy on the paperwork they were willing to provide for the FOIA query, but that does not mean there is not a policy, only that it is not written down in that section.

And the "reasonable person" test is not at all broad, even if officers might abuse it. The problem with the reasonable person test is that you don't get to argue that on the side of the road, it is something you would have to use in a court room and how you got there is another issue. Were you arrested and then released, arrested and now at trial, arrested and then acquitted, or even arrested and convicted? Or did you sue the officer and department because you felt he was not reasonable in disarming you? If so, prove it, and where is the damage that you can justify your suit with. Reasonable person is narrow, but easily abused.

The policy folks keep referring to is the all to frequent statement by an officer that the reason they are disarming the CHL at the traffic stop, and running the serial number, is that it is their policy. Now, there is every possibility that the officer is making that up, or that the officer is misquoting the section that says that when they come into possession of a firearm they will do an NCIC check, or maybe the officer doesn't understand that section and thinks they have to do it, or the officer's superiors have told him and everyone else that for the safety of the officers they will always disarm CHLs, which still would be policy even if unwritten, and that as a result of the possession of the firearm, they now have to do an NCIC check.

There are enough YouTube videos of officers hassling open carriers where open carry is legal, and telling open carriers that they are in violation of the law when in fact they are not, or telling them that it is their policy (they never say it's department policy) to do the same with any open carry person. I don't see any reason to expect any different treatment of CHL holders.

C-dub wrote:What does this mean if I'm stopped and a DPS officer tells me he is going to disarm me and check to see if my gun is stolen? . . .

The way I see it, coming into possession of your gun "for any reason" would be the excuse they are using for disarming a CHL in order to check NCIC status. If they take possession of the gun to check its NCIC status, then since they have possession of it they must check its NCIC status.

That's just the sort of logic that begs for and Attorney General opinion. Whether or not it is written policy, I would be willing to bet there are (top officers, ie chiefs, sergeants, watch commanders, etc) who verbally express that ALL CHLs will be disarmed, and because they then have possession of the gun, they must run an NCIC check.

IMHO, using the NCIC check as a reason for disarming, which according to anecdote on here and in other fora has been happening, is not valid. The only valid reason is " the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual" which does not include running an NCIC check. And, as I said before, who decides what "reasonably" means?

I suppose a truly disingenuous officer or attorney could attempt to make a case that since they had the CHL holder "in their possession" that they, by extension, therefore had the concealed firearm in their possession and thus had to run an NCIC check, but that sounds to me more like drunken teenager stopped on the beach logic than actual LEO good sense.

And of course the cynic in me, plus decades of observing politicians and officials, says that they are not going to turn over the actual policy in a simple FOIA request, that such information, if it is truly in writing, will be in some other obscure section of the regs that someone fporgot to include. There is nothing in there that states that the officer shall not disarm a CHL except under the circumstances described in 411.207, and that leaves a lot of room for weaseling around.