TexasCHLforum.com

KC5AV wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

flechero wrote:TAM,

My MPA question stems from friends that don't have a CHL. (not someone failing to produce chl upon contact.)

Thanks for the clarification. You may ignore my previous comments.

And the fact that your list had number 2 twice.

Some day your brain will be old and moldy too, my friend. I edited and re-edited that list so many times I guess I forgot to update the numbering sequence.

flechero wrote:TAM,

My MPA question stems from friends that don't have a CHL. (not someone failing to produce chl upon contact.)

Thanks for the clarification. You may ignore my previous comments.

jmra wrote:I don't think I would like being disarmed. How would I tie my shoes?

That's what flip-flops are for, silly.

flechero wrote:Another side of this I just thought of...

No one I know has been asked if he/she was carrying (under MPA) when they didn't display a chl... but in most of the cases, there is still a legal firearm in the vehicle. Is the "oversight" as simple as our reminding them with the plastic that we have a weapon? It certainly suggests that disarming chl's has nothing to do with safety. If the officer is concerned for his safety, wouldn't it seem reasonable that they ask everyone they pull over if they have a weapon?

Just as an observation, I would offer the following responses:

1. Don't confuse "failure to present CHL" with "failure to inform officer of gun in car." Presenting the CHL is a requirement under the law if you are armed at the time, even if the law no longer has a penalty appended for failure to present. Informing the officer that you're armed is not a requirement under the law. If the officer wants to know once he/she has seen your CHL, then the officer will ask you (if they care) if you are armed and if so, where the gun is, etc., etc. In this case, if you fail to present your CHL, you're "playing the fool" because the officer is going to find out your CHL status anyway, and he/she may change their opinion of you since failure to present your CHL may be reasonably interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal the information, and that could make their spidey sense tingle.

2. MPA doesn't require you to inform the officer of a weapon in the car unless asked. Thus, whatever follows by way of officer response is not a legal risk to you, so long as you don't play the fool. In this case, "playing the fool" would constitute not being truthful when asked on the one hand, and screaming "I HAVE A GUN!!!!" on the other hand. Being pleasant, calm, and rational, and truthfully answering the question if the officer asks if there are any firearms in the car is the path that is going to keep you out of handcuffs and free to go when the "interview" is over.

2. Whatever the various constitutional opinions are, the prevailing legal opinions are that when you have a CHL and a gun in your car, your CHL "preempts" MPA, and you are subject to the laws of CHL, not MPA. In this case, "playing the fool" would constitute failure to present the CHL to the officer, and failure to truthfully answer the question of whether your are armed or not if asked.

Therefore, if your friend(s) A) had a CHL, B) were in possession of a firearm in the vehicle, C) were stopped by an LEO, and D) did NOT present their CHL when asked for ID, they were in violation of the law. The fact that there is no longer a penalty for failure to present the CHL has not removed the requirement to inform from the statutes. One of the things that having a CHL does—in theory—is inform the officer that you are one of the good guys. I've only ever had 3 occasions to show my CHL (only one was a traffic stop), two of the officers (Grapevine PD) didn't even ask if I was armed, and the third one (Southlake PD) asked if I was armed, where it was, and just asked me to keep my hands away from that area.....but he didn't ask to disarm me. The problem is that failure to present the CHL, which will be discovered anyway, may very well destroy whatever good will having one in the first place had created.....setting up the type of situation which will take the contact into the area of confrontation rather than cooperation.

The trouble is, some people are their own worst enemies, and because pride goeth before the fall, they remain willfully blind to the relationship between their choices, and the consequences that develop from those choices. Those are the times that deserve one of these:

YMMV.

kjolly wrote:I liked theTexasGal answer. +1

G.A. Heath wrote:I see both sides of the issue
Here's my take on things against being disarmed:
1. Modern Handguns are most safely handled when left in their holsters unhandled, in that state the odds of a negligent discharge are so remote that it is for all intents and purposes impossible.
2. Many officers are not familiar with any firearm other than what they qualified with or are issued (sometimes that knowledge is questionable, see story below).
3. Officers are not immune to NDs.
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally become police officers.

My take on why officers can disarm CHLs:
1: It's not just traffic stops where this applies, CHLs are people and people can need a cooling down period.
2: It provides the officer with some mental comfort to disarm someone they feel uncertain about, if they don't secure the other party it is a favor to them.
3: An officers job is dynamic, they makes dynamic judgement calls (This CHL seems like an OK guy, but something doesn't seem right so I'll disarm him).
4: Unfortunately "Bad People" and idiots occasionally get CHLs.

In the end it's a judgement call on the officers part where they decide if they should disarm someone and if that is enough or if they should further restrain them.

The Story I referenced above:
I was sharing the range one day with a newly minted officer, just out of the academy, who wanted to get some practice in. Unfortunately he went and purchased ammo and didn't realize that handguns used specific cartridges. I happened to have a handgun of similar design (A Sig Sauer) to what he was issued (Also a Sig), in the caliber he bought ammo for, so I invited him to borrow it. His handling of the the firearm was extremely safe and he was accurate to a level that truly impressed me, But I noticed something odd, he would hit the decocker after chambering a round or when comming off of target. When he brought the weapon onto target he would use his left thumb to cock the hammer back for single action operation. After seeing this about ten times I asked him "Why do you keep cocking the hammer when you are on target?" His response was "Because I put the safety on." I explained that what he thought was a safety is actually a decocker and that the weapon would function in double action mode when the hammer was down. After I explained this he tells me "I wondered how our instructor was able to do that!" At that point he spent the rest of his time practicing the double pull of the gun. Firearms training is a very small part of the overall training an officer recieves and while it may seem unlikely there are officers who have never handled or fired a firearm other than what they are trained on and are issued.

These answers, in this order.

First of all, as to the chain of ownership of any guns I've bought used, I can provide it. So while there is some small risk that I bought a stolen weapon, it is not only a tiny risk, but I have no problem fingering the person who sold it to me and passing some of that risk on to them. Yes, there is the inconvenience of the extra legal attention, and there is the financial hit from having a gun I purchased in good faith confiscated, but I can assure you that the person who sold it to me will cover that loss in cash because it would rapidly become too painful to them not to. That would become my mission in life.

As far as officer comfort and safety goes....I'm for that, even if it means I have to practice a little humility. As I've stated many times, I am a very religious person. I justify being armed partly because the scriptures tell me to be. I also justify humbling myself because the scriptures tell me to be humble......which is against my natural inclinations, so I have to work at it. Pride goeth before the fall and all that stuff, so I'm not inclined to get my back up if it makes the officer more comfortable to have me disarmed. I'm not wild about it, and I am a bit nervous at the idea of someone who doesn't know what they're doing handling my gun, but I'm not going to get all up on my high horse about it either. I just want to survive the encounter with as little fuss as possible and no ticket.