TexasCHLforum.com

Winchster wrote:1.) I understand officers have a first amendment right to ask me anything they so choose, I also have the right to not answer when asked, but I don't have the right to refuse the demand. See how neatly this plays? As to your condescending dismissal regarding my understanding of ask vs demand. I fully understand the difference, however, when someone in a position of authority asks, they are merely being polite, considering they have the authority to demand.

This is also where I sit on this issue. With anyone besides a LEO a question is just that. With a LEO, however, it is more often than not just being polite and not really just a question. Most of the time, though, the reason for the contact will make it more obvious as to whether or not it is just a question or a polite demand.

The biggest problem, as I see it with OC, is that even if I'm walking minding my own business and haven't done anything else I can't control or know what the caller said to 911 that prompted the contact with a LEO. Even though the officer didn't witness any illegal behavior if the caller said I was waving it around or threatened them that's all the officer has to go on when they approach me.

Abraham wrote:As an aside to this thread, I'd like to ask: Why isn't the CHL enough identity all by it's lonesome?

Your photo's on it.

It's good enough by it's self in other uses as a stand alone identity.

But, in addition to providing your CHL, LEO's want your DL too.

Why?

For one, they are supposed to match. And also possibly because they are not just trying to establish identity.

howdy wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

Taypo wrote:On a personal note, I work in a retail location that is CC friendly. heck, a good portion of my regular customers spend time bull'ing about guns on a daily basis. Ownership has no intention of posting a 30.06, because some of us carry at work and we have a lot of chl customers. That being said, we also have a lot of customers that are definitely not gun people and would probably be uncomfortable with guns in the open. There's a high likelihood that we'll be posting 30.07, simply to appease a portion of our customer base. It doesn't make us anti-gun, it makes us anti-losing business.

Its not a decision that I like, but its a realistic one that I suspect will be made elsewhere.

The love for firearms and the belief of being armed goes very deep in my soul, but I will be posting a 30.07 at my church without a doubt.

That seems surprising to me. I would assume you know every one in your congregation fairly well. We also know that at this point if/when OC passes it would strictly be for licensed CHL holders.

CHL holders have excellent track records of being law abiding citizens, and I would assume most of the God fearing folks at your church do as well.

Why not just wait to post 30.07 until you see if it is really a problem? If someone did OC at your church why not just pull them aside and notify them verbally?

I believe this is the best option for a Church as large as mine. We have greeters at all entrances to the sanctuary on Sunday morning and these people could verbally inform an OC'er to cover the gun. It might come down to a discussion if the greeter has that authority but I would hope they would just cover it up or take it back to the car. We have many CC members and I don't think any of them will OC. I think businesses that have greeter's like Costco/Sam's/Walmart might do the same thing.

It may not be the case at all churches, but in general I don't think "greeters" have the authority required for oral notification to be effective notice. Unless, of course, I've missed something in the 30.07 notification requirements.