TexasCHLforum.com

Well, you got me on pronouns. My comments were still obviously targeted at police chief's comments and the policy put in place.
We'll agree to disagree. I'm not in any hole btw. I still stand by everything I've said. If the chief or any of his officers arrest *KNOWING* that these signs aren't valid, they deserve a LOT of grief. And stating that they would do just that is a problem.
Because they haven't yet, really isn't the issue.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit.

What I want to beat up on is anyone in Government who makes such a statement that appears to be obvious abuse of power of almost worse, exercise of power out of pure ignorance.
I haven't picked on one officer. In fact, my post was clearly responding to the (as I said), "in your face" attitude of the chief.
When someone in power says they're going to, in effect, change the law because they feel like it, I have a problem with that. Period. We're a "nation of laws not men."
I love my local Sugar Land PD. They've helped me out of a scrape, and I'm forever grateful, but I guarantee, I won't be defending their chief if he said something so obviously out of line with the law. It's our job as citizens to make sure government doesn't over step its boundaries, and even though this may appear to be minor, it's still overstepping.

Just because they haven't arrested anyone means nothing to me. It's the statement he made, and yes, he deserves to be beat up over it. As soon as he says, "Oops, I was wrong. Unless the signs are valid, we won't arrest," it's over. Until then, if he catches grief for it... good.

Again, I have no beef with an individual officer or any officers in the GVPD, but everything I said was directed to the chief, his policy, his attitude, and his apparent direction. I can't imagine not seeing how he deserves grief for it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

TAM, relax man. I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.
Should we just sit back and be ok with the police acting out of accordance with the law just because they do many other things well??

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

I took these pics a year or so ago at Katy Mills Mall (same owner and format as GVM... almost exactly the same mall).

Here pics of the signs at the entrances... however, the anchor stores have no signs (Bass Pro, etc.).


I didn't have a tape measure, so I used a 5 dollar bill for reference. The capital letters go to this point on a 5 dollar bill.



Then, when I put a tape measure up to the 5 dollar bill, you can see it's well short of one inch, making the sign invalid, right?

Photoman wrote:

My point being...

People worry too much about things that have virtually no chance of ever happening.

Couldn't you make that same argument for carrying a gun in the first place??
The odds of ever needing a gun for protection are also extremely low. (Thank God)

Personally, I worry more about the complications that could be added to my case if I needed to use my gun for protection at this mall or other venues with similar issues regarding questionable signs. Getting caught carrying randomly is much less of a concern. "Concealed means concealed."

But if I had to protect myself, instead of my action being clearly labeled "self defense" or a "justifiable shoot", it may get ugly criminally and civilly. That scares me WAAAY more than just having to beat the ride...