TexasCHLforum.com

AFJailor wrote:Flint, I feel like we are agreeing on most of this argument.

I just think, as I am sure you do , that an LEO has a obligation and a responsibility to defend himself and others...this goes for every man/women but more so for LEO's. I am also sure that you and I both think that there are certain occasions when an LEO should be able to disarm people, I DO NOT think that a policy should be in affect to disarm all CHLs, I must of said this 4-5 times by now.

I guess the part where we are disagreeing is that I believe an LEO should be able to use his street smarts and on the job experience to determine if there is a safety risk and disarm someone. I understand that you do not want to be disarmed, but I doubt you or many other people on this forum would give a cop a reason to feel endangered. Is there occasions where CHL's are disarmed for the sheer fact that an LEO is green/nervous/paranoid, yes and is that a problem? Yes again. If something like that were to happen then you should file a complaint and try and get the problem resolved. However, I do firmly believe that the decision is in the hands of the officer and he just like we must face the consequences of his actions if they are ruled to be inappropriate.

We are NOT in disagreement about LEO using experience, gut feeling, street smarts, etc....to do their job.

An officer simply will not last long if he doesn't employ these things with the criminal populace..and to some degree with the general citizenry (because you don't know who you have stopped).

My objection... is to the wholesale application of distrust when dealing with CHL's.

It is ONLY the misuse of the authority to disarm that I am concerned with. Perhaps I failed to make that clear.

Often times, it takes a little "friction" to bring attention to a disservice being done. I don't really view these "discussions" as arguments, and I hope you don't either. It is well, to exchange ideas and feelings.

If LEO and the general public did more of this...I suspect relations would be much better than they are.

Only once in my 50+ years have I had an occasion to truly dislike my experience with a LEO. I am always "genuinely" respectful of them and normally receive the same in return. Thats just the way I was raised.

If ever I receive what I believe to be improper or unlawful treatment, I will be at the Chief's desk post-haste trying to correct it. Other's should do so as well.

So yeah, "consequences" works just fine for me.

Odin wrote:

flintknapper wrote:AFJailor wrote:

1.Overly aggressive behavior

2.If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol

3.Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Number three is somewhat subjective, but I fully recognize the value of "street smarts".

95% of police work is somewhat subjective. Whether or not to arrest someone is often subjective (except in certain cases). Taking someone's freedom by arresting them is much more serious than temporarily disarming someone on a traffic stop. If you seek a world without subjective law enforcement you're either going to have anarchy or a police state. Neither way is better than our current system in my opinion.

I would argue the assertion that "95% of police work is subjective"... is accurate, but certainly the entirety of an officers experiences come into play when performing their duties.

I wouldn't have it any other way...and it is a vital part of the job.

But, I am sure you would agree...it is important for an officer to make intelligent decisions when applying those "gut feelings".

If personal safety becomes the ONLY thing important to the officer, then...I submit they should choose another line of work.

Otherwise, they would logically disarm, handcuff and immobilize every person they came in contact with. Nothing subjective about that.

My point is a simple one: Have a legitimate reason to disarm a CHL before doing so.

AFJailor wrote:

In every part of our daily lives there will be things we do not deem fair, and I am not saying that the traffic stop sounds like a job well done or anything but without the officers perspective who know why the individual was disarmed. There are many reasons why he could of been disarmed, maybe the cop was new a newbie and did not know what the heck he was doing.

Agreed, we do not have the officers perspective to draw from here (as I posted in my reply). However, we may get the “perspective� of those here who were disarmed, unless you think their thoughts are unimportant and that only the LEO’s position is of any consideration.

If the Cop was a rookie (prone to mistakes), then I believe we can all overlook certain things and offer a little more “wink� as he/she better learns his job. In this interest, don’t you think that open communication between the citizenry and the PD is a good idea, or would that somehow be “challenging� authority?


AFJailor wrote:

I was not trying to say that no one ever gets disarmed during a traffic stop, I am simply saying that so few people report being disarmed and yet such a HUGE stink is raised over it. There are almost 2500 member on this forum and you can come up with 7 examples of CHLs being disarmed? Whoopdeedo. The VAST majority of traffic stops seem to go off with out a hitch, I say good job Texas LEO's thanks for not infringing upon our 2a rights and keep up the good work.

And well you shouldn’t… try to say that no one gets disarmed. As far as numbers go…your reasoning is flawed at a basic level. 2500 members does not equate to 2500 “stops�. If you like, I can run a poll, but likely we would come up with about 10% of the participants being disarmed. If those 10% were disarmed because of “policy� rather than by legitimate reasons, are you not concerned with that? Does officer safety (by any means) now TRUMP the “rights� that tens of thousands of men have fought and died for? Does that put it in a little different light!


AFJailor wrote:

It boils down to this...LEO's are generally good people who have taken up a life in a position of authority, a CHL holder is a generally good civilian who has chosen to take advantage of their 2a rights but is NOT in a position of authority. So you have a few choices; refuse to disarm and be arrested; disarm and accept your ticket and go about your merry way; file a complaint; or not break the law in the first place and never have to worry about it. The choice is yours to make, just be prepared to face the consequences.

How very Draconian, and a good example why there continues to be a wedge driven between some LEO and the public. But, I’ll take you up on the “file a complaint�, and would encourage others to do the same.. until this matter is taken seriously at the dept level.


AFJailor wrote:

I respect LEO the same as I respect every man, because they are in fact people pulled from the general populace, they are not perfect and many will make mistakes. The same could be said about EVERY single person on this forum, no one here can say that they have never made mistakes at their job. I understand that LEO's have great responsibility and with that comes a huge microscope on everything they do, but what you need to understand is that they are people just like you. I doubt during guard mount (or rollcall or whatever they call it) that the patrolman are wondering how many people they can disarm that day. Stop looking for monsters in the shadows just long enough to see that MOST Cops are very good, very responsible people who care about there fellow man.

Please don’t school me about LEO. I have several good friends who are current officers, have known and appreciated LEO all of my life. Support them in every way that I can, and have the utmost respect for the job that they do. I am in no manner “looking for monsters�, but when I see what I feel is a growing “trend� to disarm CHL’s only because it makes the officer feel safer, then yes…I will challenge that… no matter how small the number of occurrences.

Yes, we all make mistakes...and I expect no less from LEO.

Likewise, I expect them to learn from and CORRECT those mistakes, just like the rest of us. Surely, you would not argue that (but maybe so).

Thank you for your thoughts concerning this touchy subject,


Flint.

AFJailor wrote:

flintknapper wrote: Of course, we all hope this is true.

Just to make things clear, what are a few things you would consider to be "good reasons" as concerns an officer disarming a CHL, please be specific.

Thanks,

Flint.

Overly aggressive behavior
If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol
Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Thats fine, these will do...although there probably are "plenty more".

AFJailor wrote:

1.Overly aggressive behavior

2.If the CHL appears to be under the influence of drugs/alchohol

3.Also, a lot of things that an LEO does are based off of personal experience and intuition, so if you start acting overly nervous, or your behavior is such that it gives the LEO reason to believe you could become aggresive, then I believe disarming would be justifiable.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are plenty more.

Number three is somewhat subjective, but I fully recognize the value of "street smarts".

So, taking the above into consideration, how may we apply them to the stops below (all traffic stops):


[

b]phddan [/b] Post subject:
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:38 pm
joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:21 pm
Posts: 517
Location: Briggs One time I told the officer after I handed him the CHL that I was armed, and was promptly disarmed, then given a warning.

jbirds1210 Post subject:
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:59 am
Moderator

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:36 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: Texas City, Texas
I have been disarmed once in Nacogdoches. What bothered me about this stop was that he had a cadet and instructed him to disarm folks with a CHL.

Humanphibian Post subject:
Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:20 pm
Member

Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
Posts: 130
Location: N. Richland Hillz, Republic of Texas!

During our initial meeting I identified myself and was asked for ID to verify I was actually "me". I gave DL and CHL and was asked if I was armed. I responded in the affirmative that was, on my person along w/ back-up and long gun in my truck. He asked if I minded leaving my handgun in my vehicle, then told me I didn't "have" to, but he would be more comfortable. I responded that it was no problem whatsoever, and disarmed.

Zim Post subject: Disarmed and received a warning
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:14 pm
Junior Member

Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:53 pm
Posts: 2 I was caught in a newly posted construction zone. When I saw him turning around, I pulled over and waited. I had the pistol in the car. After handing DL & CHL, I was asked to step to the rear of the vehicle while he unloaded and ran the pistol. I told him where to find the SN.
Received a ticket and asked not to load it until after he left.

AFJailor wrote:

I have yet to see anyone that has brought forth anything saying that any department has a policy to disarm CHL's. How many of you have ever even been disarmed? I think that people are getting awfully upset where there doesnt even seem to be a problem.

It took me about 3 minutes (right here) to find the above. If memory serves, I can find you at least 6 more from this site alone.

We do not have the luxury of being able to hear the officers side of the story, but we can certainly ask our members if they feel they were displaying any of the conditions you cited above.

And if they did not, then I would ask you to reconcile this.

AFJailor wrote:I dont understand why all of you are making comments about how bad it is for it to be a general policy to disarm ALL CHL's. Unless I have missed something no one is saying that, it is a good thing, just that they think if an LEO decides for WHATEVER reason that he needs to disarm them, then he should do so. So stop jumping everyones bones that disagrees with you. I have yet to see anyone that has brought forth anything saying that any department has a policy to disarm CHL's. How many of you have ever even been disarmed? I think that people are getting awfully upset where there doesnt even seem to be a problem.

The fact of the matter is this...as stated by pretty much everyone in this thread, an LEO has the authority to disarm an individual if he REASONABLY believes they present a threat to his safety. This threat is determined by the objective reasonableness of the officer on scene. You may never know why he disarmed you (should it ever happen in the first place) but I think it is safe to assume that most LEO's would not disarm you without good reason.

Of course, we all hope this is true.

Just to make things clear, what are a few things you would consider to be "good reasons" as concerns an officer disarming a CHL, please be specific.

Thanks,

Flint.

dac1842 wrote:AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

So....you are O.K. with an officer taking ANY measure (Carte Blanche) to ensure his safety? Or have I misread your post?

Well said.

gregthehand wrote:The only reason I can see is this. If an officer disarms everyone he will never have to prove why he disarmed one certain individual. If something occured and for some reason they ever went to court and one of the attorneys asked Officer Jones why did you disarm my client? He could answer "I disarm every CHL holder I encounter on a traffice stop." It could be his department policy, or his personal policy and he could say that's it's always for his and the public's safety and be ok since the law is so vague. This holds true for most things on a traffice stop. Why did you have my client exit the vehicle, why did you ask them to roll down all their windows, etc. Once in court they can claim officer safety and that they do it on all traffice stops or public encounters and it won't look like they singled that individual out. I'm not sure how good of a reason that is but I know a lot of police officers do it.

Just my opinion of course, but being "consistent" at overstepping one's authority, or causing unnecessary inconvenience for the person stopped, in no wise makes it O.K.

It's like saying..."Stop your whining, I treat everyone poorly".

tbranch wrote:

...the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

How hard do you think it would be to say, "I reasonably believed it was necessary?" The law is very vague on this issue.

Tom

No harder than any other charge/assertion that might be leveled.

Unfortunately, that is part of the reason we now have dash-cams (for mutual protection).

AFJailor wrote:

so if a LEO thinks its a good idea to disarm you for his safety then IMO he shouldn't hesitate to do so.

No Sir, “good idea� doesn’t cut it. Below are the ONLY criteria LEO are allowed to (lawfully) use when disarming.

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.




AFJailor wrote:

Don't you think you might just be a little more cautious around an individual with a weapon if you had to deal with shootings every day?

I fully recognize the dangers involved in law enforcement work and support LEO every way I can... but LEO do NOT “deal with shootings everyday�. And if they did…it begs the question:

Did these shootings involve law abiding CHL holders?

Of course, the answer is NO, so why should it become policy to disarm them?


AFJailor wrote:

If I was on a traffic stop and an LEO disarmed me I would not think any less of them, because he/she is doing doing his job and trying to make sure he can go home to his family at the end of the day.

I certainly want all LEO to go home at the end of day as well, who wouldn’t. But I will never subscribe to a “safety by any means� mentality. If my rights are violated in the process, this becomes unacceptable to me.

As for “doing his/her job� I would say that (following the law) is “doing their job�, and here it is:

may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual.

Doing anything else is NOT following/enforcing the “law� and is in fact… NOT “doing their job�.

Law enforcement is inherently dangerous, prospective LEO’s should take this into consideration before selecting it as a profession… I am sure most do.


Again, I am in complete support of every “good� LEO out there. I greatly appreciate the work they do and the peril they put themselves in. Just don’t trample my rights or circumvent the “law� for sake of convenience while doing your job.

CHL/LEO wrote:

Then it would no longer be in your possession, custody, or control, or not a potential threat to the officer.

Not true- courts have ruled that if it was within reach while you were in the vehicle, then it still can be searched. The reason being is that once the LEOs allow you back into the car then you would have access to the weapon and could thus engage the officer.

Same thing is true when an officer asks the CHL for his weapon (when on person). If ever there was an opportunity to "engage" the LEO this would be the time. He/She has effectively given you permission to present your weapon.

Also, when the officer returns your weapon (even those that have been unloaded by the LEO), if the "smart" CHL is carrying an extra mag. (SA-Autos), then he could "engage" the officer at this time as well.

The laws are in place to give LEO enough latitude to protect themselves from BG's. That is well and good and I support that.

But...it is time for LEO and/or their departments to figure out that CHL's are NOT the BG's.

My concern about this is: That disarming CHL's will become general "practice" among some LEO or dept's. If we do not question these actions (at the dept. level, NOT on the street) then it might easily get out of hand.

I guess I am fortunate in terms of where I live (small town). The LEO here are reasonable (indeed accommodating) and I foresee no such problems here. When I travel to Houston or Austin however, I would like to be assured that I will NOT be disarmed except "per the law" and not as a matter of dept. policy or personal preference.

I know you feel the same way and my "rant" is not directed at you. Just want you to know that.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It is clear that a LEO can temporarily disarm a CHL during a stop. The statute isn't clear as to the geographical scope of this authority, so I believe an officer's authority would be interpreted in light of the cases dealing with what constitutes carrying a handgun "on or about one's person." The case law pretty much holds that anywhere within the passenger compartment of the vehicle is "on or about one's person." So, if the gun is in the passenger area of the car, I believe an officer could retrieve it. If it was locked in the trunk, then I don't believe he officer would have the authority to require you to open it and let him take the gun.

This is just my evaluation of how the law would be interpreted, as I know of no case law directly on point.

Chas.

As soon as the person exits the vehicle (of his own volition or by order), he is no longer in close proximity to the weapon, nor is it "readily accessible".

Personally, if ordered from my vehicle...I would immediately lock it behind me.

This whole thing about officers disarming law abiding CHL holders as a matter of "policy" really puts a burr under my saddle.

I recognize in this case it is a matter of "discussion" only, but I have to wonder why a LEO would feel compelled to remove a person from a vehicle AND retrieve the firearm afterward.