TexasCHLforum.com

Texas Sheepdog wrote: Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

Texas Sheepdog
Afternoon. I see your back posting

You may have missed the request in this thread.. But I noticed you did not respond,here or any other thread you posted to.

Might you tell us here or in a PM if you prefer, what Texas Law enforcement depart you work for that has a disarm all CHL's on contact policy as you stated?
This is still a very interesting subject to me..
I'll send you a PM as well encase you miss this thread.
I though you had left the forum, then noticed your still posting.. Thanks.

PS if your personal choice or department policy forbids you from telling us where you work, and what department has this disarm all CHL's, would you be so kind as to just state that .. so we know it's a dead issue?

Thanks again.

AEA wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Or we could get someone with enough standing to ask the Attorney General for an opinion and hope it comes out right.

I wonder who that "someone with enough standing" might be? .......um......thinking.....................................................

I wish it was JUST someone with "standing"

Who Can Request an Attorney General Opinion?
Section 402.042 of the Government Code lists the officials who are authorized to request formal attorney general opinions on questions of law. The attorney general is prohibited by statute from giving a written opinion to anyone other than an authorized requestor. Authorized requestors are:

the governor
the head of a department of state government
the head or board of a penal institution
the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
the head of a state board
a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
a county auditor authorized by law
the chairman of the governing board of a river authority
A person other than an authorized requestor who wants to ask for an attorney general opinion should approach someone who is named in section 402.042 as an authorized requestor.

Texas Sheepdog wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Disarming law abiding CHLers is nothing to get your yucks over.

I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks.

All criminals are violators, not all violators are criminals.

Yes, we get it,, you a Law Enforcement Officer do in fact contact most folks based on PC or RS that said person has violated a law in some way..

Most times your likely right, sometimes you’re not.

And many times I bet, the law in question is a nonviolent, non-serious offence..
And then there are the times the innocent citizen has contacted the police for assistance..
But it seems from what you have posted...when you, arrive, find them with a CHL, and then disarm them for your safety, and assume the weapon may be stolen, running a check in the data base.. and you considerthat acceptable conduct?

As your position is clear from your words posted. I’ll phrase this accordingly.. In the Us vs Them mentality your displaying here in this forum I believe you do a disservice to your department and I know a disservice to the public you serve.

If I have read your posts wrong, feel free to restate your opinion. Im a believer in the good LEO’s do…and in general a supporter…But my reception of your transmitted content, leaves a bad taste. I hope Im wrong, show me why if you will.

mojo84 wrote:I'm not going to argue with you EM as I don't think it was intended or written that they could do it without reasonable belief, ("reasonably believes" not "feeling") and just as a matter of standard procedure. Many cops do this as way of reminding the "suspect" who's in charge and who is in control.

You can think what you do and I can think what I do.

Was not intended or stated as an argument But ongoing discussion.
And yes, I'll edit my post above to use the correct words.." reasonably believes" Good point thanks.
Though same idea, still NO tangible action overt or otherwise required..

mojo84 wrote: I also don't buy the idea any decent cop can always articulate a valid reason like one or two on here have said before.

I believe any reasonable articulate adult can do that as well... it's pretty low bar set by the law. It is based on what the LEO reasonably believes, not tangible, quantifiable substance...
Hard to disprove an intangible.

Observed a vehicle with a tail light out, upon initiating the stop with emergency lights and voice command to pull over, the driver did not pull over immediately (1), but proceeded to a poorly light parking lot(2). Upon first contact, the driver appeared nervous(3). Driver presented a DL and CHL. Based on the drivers actions, and my observations that he was acting nervous, for the safety of myself and the public I informed the driver I would be disarming him IAW GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM

I am not a LEO, so I likely have the verbiage and jargon wrong,,, point is.. only subjective things must be articulated to justify and comply with GC 411.207. Most any High school graduate could do that….Never mind a professional law enforcement officer that does this stuff for a living.


*1(as most of us are taught to pull over to a SAFE location, and that is a determination made on the spot by a citizen not used to doing so I can see passing a possible spot, looking for a better spot to pull over, or off a street)
*2(As per 1 above... finding a spot that is safe, the parking lot in the drivers mind may be a "safe" spot, meaning no traffic, but the LEO sees it as a more dangerous spot as it's isolated, and "poorly" lit,, even though it is lighted as well or no worse than another parking lot in the area)
*3(Acting nervous,, taking out of context it can be suspicious, but as most are apt to be a bit nervous at being lit up, pulled over.. not really that suspicious at all in the correct context)
Add to all of that, an officer with a preconceived mental position that there job is more dangerous than most others (statistically not true) perhaps been in a few dicey situations.. and there personal perception (fairly I might add) may be biased to see possible danger or suspicion in ways others (us, generally good guys) may not see the same.

Texas Sheepdog wrote:That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

At last, a first hand report of a policy that confirms.. thank you. Care to tell us what department this is?

I dislike that policy greatly
Being assumed to be a thief and a safety concern based on a one size fits all policy is at least disrespectful, hopefully illegal and unethical.

Disarming not as the law gives a officer the right to, when there is safety concern that can be articulated, justifying the disarming. ,,, and then worse, leaving that citizen unarmed after the questionable search is over.. is a horrid way to treat a US citizen as a matter of policy.
I understand if the contact is a serious one, violence, DUI, ect..... but as a overall policy.. wow, that concerns me greatly.

I stand corrected, I had up until now believed it was a personal officer decision…. Not a department policy.

Bob in Big D wrote:Maybe all you need is ....how many guns taken from CHL's were found to be stolen when run thu NCIC, regardless of how they were acquired by DPS.

Right,, but if it a document request that must be made, and not a data request.. I would have to request a specific document that would have that data.... What single document is that....???

GrillKing wrote:A couple of things, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is federal. State requests fall under the Open Records Act. Regardless, if it looks and smells like an ORA request, the agency must honor the request. You are requesting documents and not research. They don't have to compile statistics for you. If it is not in the documents you requested, you won't get it. Be specific in the documents you request or they won't be found. Also, you do not have to justify why you want the documents and they can't ask. None of their business. Tell them it is an Open Records Request and you want copies of the documents listed or documents containing <content description> or similar.

Thank you.

I'll have to research the correct documents to request then..
What I want to see,, is how many guns have been seized from a CHL... I realize this data will include those that deserve to have the gun sized, due to them committing a crime.. like DUI, assault, domestic violence, ect What I want may not be possible..... without requesting thousands of pages, and sifting through them to compile the data. Possible more then i can do.. We will see.

mikedude wrote:This is not being scared, but something one that is not a LEO cannot understand.

Not correct in MY opinion.. there are other persons (jobs) that deal with contacting potentially dangerous individuals.

mikedude wrote: I get paid to do a job and go home to our families.

Well,. no you get paid to do the job.. going home to your family is what you want , and what every person that leaves for work wants.. you as a LEO want, desire, or deserve it no more then the ER doc, or the garbage man just because you are a LEO.

mikedude wrote: I have been in a fatal shooting and let me tell you it goes from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye, heck faster sometimes.

Actually I do know what it's like....., several dozens of times over, vice once in a career at most for the general LEO group..

But that aside,, Yes I think we are on the same page.. By actual threat I did not mean, a overt physical action only... I understand and get a decision based on the whole of the situation.. and I would not want less for our LEO's..

And no, Im not a LEO.
And no as stated,, since age 18, I have been in contact with a LEO due to an infraction less then once per 11 years... so not a frequent flyer.

mikedude wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

mikedude wrote:I guess one can just flash their CHL badge and all is good

Makes as much sense as LEO's treating a citizen as a thief, with no PC or RS that they have stolen anything. Or treating them like a violent criminal, when they have not committed a violent crime.

Im very ok with LEO having a legal right to disarm a CHL'er when needed.
Im not ok with them doing it, because it's thursday.. or because I had a tail light out... because I called 911 to report a crime.. or well because of anything other them presenting a articulable threat to the LEO's life. A THREAT,, an actual threat.. Not the possibility of a threat, but a tangible threat.

It's only a hard concept to grasp, for some of those on the other side of the blue line......The STATS show... CHL's are not a general threat to a LEO during a contact.... but, hey, lets not let tangible facts get in the way of paranoia.

Gotta disagree to a point. IF I fear for my safety, and have a lawful detention I am taking the gun. This is not being scared, but something one that is not a LEO cannot understand. That is the nature of the work. I will not wait until there is an actual threat to my safety as that will be too late. You can be sure I will be able to articulate the facts and probably have video/audio of the contact as well. Downside is I will be second guessed on internet forums by people that were not there . I get paid to do a job and go home to our families. I have been in a fatal shooting and let me tell you it goes from talking to shooting in the blink of an eye, heck faster sometimes. As a reminder I have NEVER taken a chl holders gun in TWO states that I have worked.

For the most part we are on the same page here.

Actually I do know what it's like....., several dozens of times over, vice once in a career at most for the general LEO group..

But that aside,, Yes I think we are on the same page.. By actual threat I did not mean, a overt physical action only... I understand and get a decision based on the whole of the situation.. and I would not want less for our LEO's..

I think the discussion is aimed at a minority.. be it a minority of departments that direct it, or minority of LEO's that make the individual decision to disarm as a routine and run serial numbers, just because they can.

As I have averaged only 1 LEO contact in an official capacity per 11 years after age 18.... I may never get to see what really happens when stopped for an infraction and disarmed..

mikedude wrote:I guess one can just flash their CHL badge and all is good

Makes as much sense as LEO's treating a citizen as a thief, with no PC or RS that they have stolen anything. Or treating them like a violent criminal, when they have not committed a violent crime.

Im very ok with LEO having a legal right to disarm a CHL'er when needed.
Im not ok with them doing it, because it's thursday.. or because I had a tail light out... because I called 911 to report a crime.. or well because of anything other them presenting a articulable threat to the LEO's life. A THREAT,, an actual threat.. Not the possibility of a threat, but a tangible threat.

It's only a hard concept to grasp, for some of those on the other side of the blue line......The STATS show... CHL's are not a general threat to a LEO during a contact.... but, hey, lets not let tangible facts get in the way of paranoia.

Bob in Big D wrote:I think that is the point of this thread. Understanding what the policy is, and how we as CHL's can help influence that policy. We could be getting a bum rap or...... DPS has confiscated a large amount of stolen guns. The point is we don't know and until we do it is what it is. So we adhere to the orders of the LEO or suffer the consequences.

I prefer to think...
We adhere to the legal, morel and ethical orders from a LEO, or invest our time, money, freedom if so required to see that wrongs are righted...

mikedude wrote:

nightmare wrote:I think disarming is left to the mood of the trooper but if they disarm you policy says they will run the serial number.

It is not the "mood", but whether they fear for their safety./quote]
And then in lays the discussion at hand..

The "Feeling" of some CHL's is that officers are not doing this out of safety or fear as you state,, but out of policy, personal or department.. Ie, because they can... not because of an articulable position that justifies seizure IAW the law as written.

steveincowtown wrote: Being able to articulate why the information needed is for the public good is usually key to getting the information for free and in a timely manner.

Thanks for the tips..
So your saying I should use some justification other then " Data to be used to support this checking of CHL's weapon serial numbers to be unconstitutional, and possible a criminal act.

Bob in Big D wrote:I have read all 5 pages but have not seen any stats on how many guns from CHL's have been confiscated after running a NCIC check. I am guessing this info should be available and I am wondering why it was not supplied with the original FOIA?

QUESTION?
How does one request that specific piece of data in a FOIA?

Im willing to go through the effort, incur the costs...but don't know how.