TexasCHLforum.com

Reasonableness is the "standard" in both the citizen's right to use force/deadly force and the LEO's right to disarm a CHL and/or incurr a person's vehicle. There have been some very "reasonable" and some vague reasons articulated for a LEO to disarm a CHL of his/her CCW ASAP (dang, there are a lot of initials here).

My one, and only one interjection into this discussion is to ask whether we can or cannot expect the same strict application of the "reasonableness" standard be applied to a LEO when he chooses to disarm a citizen or search their vehicle/person?

To suggest, for instance, that by answering I, "...when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes (I believed) the
deadly force is immediately necessary:..." shot the yo-yo laying in my front yard should be the end of the whole affair is ludicrous. I had better be able to articulate to a sitting Grand Jury (either in person or through the agency of a sympathetic DA) why I was reasonable in my belief it was immediately necessary to shoot this person. If I can't do that, I will stand trial and if I can't sufficiently articulate my "reasonableness" to that jury, I'm going to jail or worse.

To suggest that an officer be given a non-scrutinizing nod from their department, the government, SCOTUS or the population at large because the key phrase, that he/she, "...at any time the officer reasonably believes(-ed) it is (was) necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual." and disarmed the CHL, searched the vehicle or arrested an individual at a routine stop is equally as ludicrous and moreover repugnant. {Who's got the longest run-on now}. To further suggest that one will not get anywhere by lodging a complaint after the fact is fruitless is the kind of mentality that allows the further erosion of the republican principles our country was founded on.

Challenging the LEO's authority at a scene is a non sequitor, respectfully asking what his reasons are, is not. If no reason is offered it is still the better part of wisdom (and the practical reality) to comply and pursue the issue administratively. If he becomes agitated go completely submissive. Pursue it by obtaining all records immediately and as a first step. Failing administrative redress, pursue it legally but do not let it go unanswered.

That said, I have never had a problem at a stop because I was armed. I am a meticulous driver and rarely have I even been stopped and mostly because of a momentary distraction and even more rarely, cited. I have never been disarmed and have, with one distinct exception (not of pertinence here), been treated professionally and respectfully. Usually the first or third things said is why I was being stopped. If I am ever asked to disarm without the same courtesy (offered or in reply), I'll be going after satisfaction starting at the desk seargent and on up from there.