Unlicensed open carry in Texas: a proposal

[frankie_the_yankee]

Let me repeat that. In Texas they DON"T NEED A LICENSE to carry concealed inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

What does that have to do with the OP? The topic is "Unlicensed Open Carry", right? Not "Unlicensed Concealed Carry in a Motor Vehicle".

I'm trying to stay on topic here. If you want to discuss unlicensed concealed carry in a motor vehicle, I would say that is a topic for a new thread.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am not for sure what you know the average criminal does not already know, but all an officer has to do is pick up his microphone and say, "I need a 10-43 and white male John Doe birthday 01-24-54." And with minutes it is given to them. In many circumstances when they are working something that appears to be ongoing they can have that information placed in their boxes for later pick up. Again, the CCH has EVERYTHING on it including "bad" arrest.

So now cops are going to run criminal history reports on everyone they stop? I'll bet dispatch and the street cops themselves will just love that idea.

I like the system we have now. If we added OC to the modes of legal carry it would be fine with me. And when a street cop runs someone, their LTC status would automatically come up just like it does now. No new procedures needed. Some level of assurance to the cop that you're a Good Guy. And makes it a little tougher for Bad Guys to blend in.

For my own part, I just don't like unlicensed OC. I would rather that people obtain a SHALL ISSUE license before carrying a gun in public. I don't see such a thing as an infringement on 2A rights at all. I think it is "reasonable". And I think that if people believe that makes me anti-gun or anti-2A, that's a heck of a stretch. Show me more people who believe and/or encourage non-LEO's to carry handguns for self defense, who support shall issue licensing, nationwide reciprocity, and "Castle Doctrine" laws, who are also "anti-gun".

So it kind of bothers me a bit when people throw those kinds of charges towards me instead of making a rational argument. Not a lot, but some.

I try to avoid personal references and characterizations in my posts. I don't always succeed, but I try. I've found that in the end, it makes for more interesting exchanges.

[carlson1]

I am not for sure what you know the average criminal does not already know, but all an officer has to do is pick up his microphone and say, "I need a 10-43 and white male John Doe birthday 01-24-54." And with minutes it is given to them. In many circumstances when they are working something that appears to be ongoing they can have that information placed in their boxes for later pick up. Again, the CCH has EVERYTHING on it including "bad" arrest.

So now cops are going to run criminal history reports on everyone they stop? I'll bet dispatch and the street cops themselves will just love that idea.

Thats right. I ran about 90% of the people I stopped. That is how many Parolee's are picked up. It takes no longer 10-43 than it does a 10-27/29.

[aardwolf]

Let me repeat that. In Texas they DON"T NEED A LICENSE to carry concealed inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

What does that have to do with the OP? The topic is "Unlicensed Open Carry", right? Not "Unlicensed Concealed Carry in a Motor Vehicle".

It has to do with the specious argument that "Unlicensed Open Carry" allows criminals to blend in at traffic stops.

Unlicensed concealed carry is allowed in vehicles. Please explain how open carry "blends in" more than concealed carry.

I'm trying to stay on topic here. If you want to discuss unlicensed concealed carry in a motor vehicle, I would say that is a topic for a new thread.

I'm sorry but I saw a hole in your argument big enough to drive the space shuttle through.

[KBCraig]

When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.

In Texas he can run a Criminal History Check in just a matter of seconds. Most officers I know when the run the DL then run a Criminal History. It has ALL ARREST even if you were not convicted.

I cannot respond fully to this without putting personal info out on the net that should (and must) remain private.

But I will say that I have some direct (i.e. 1st hand) knowledge of my own as to standard procedures, what info cops get when they run you, etc.

You're seriously going to argue with a former state trooper about what information is available to a cop on the street?

[Tajovo]

Then there's also the fact that there is info that might be avaliable from NICS such as data from other states, mental data, etc. that won't show up on a TX criminal history check.

Frankie, FYI, both the Texas and National databases are automatically checked when a CCH check is completed, and RAP sheets on criminal history checks DO show the full disposition of the criminal case. As a dispatcher I have no problem running a history for an officer and have yet to hear other officers complain about this.

With respect to the OP that's the last that I will be posting in regard to off-topic data. (SHould you need any further clarification Frankie, feel free to PM me.)

I'm all for open carry, but I don't see it coming anytime soon. I'd settle for just getting everyone that I know to a CHL class, at the very least I'd know my loved ones are taking the steps to protect themselves.

-Jeff

[lawrnk]

Here we go again. Insert dead horse and can of worms

[flb_78]

In TX, you are required to declare if you are carrying and show your license. The cop doesn't have to ask.

Here does this information come from? You mean every time I see a cop, I have to run up to him and tell him I'm carrying?

I was under the impression that the only time I had to show my license was when I was asked for it.

[kauboy]

Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.
When I posed my scenario, nobody was committing an obvious crime. Two men walking down the street carrying openly. An officer sees them and MUST assume they are doing so legally(if OC were legal, licensed or unlicensed).
Then frankie jumps off on some tangent about declaring.
Hey frankie, I only have to declare once an officer asks for ID, and he CAN'T do that unless investigating a crime.
So, if no crime, then no inquiry for ID.
Hence the BG has just avoided the need for a license to OC. Only when he does something stupid will he be questioned about it.
Now, if he happens to jump in a car, then his tags are public information, and the cop can run it. Then the BG can just deal with it.
The point is, whether a license is required or not, the officer must assume that he is carrying legally if OC were legal.

Please stop telling everyone else their arguments have holes when yours can't even be held together with Gorilla Glue.

[frankie_the_yankee]

So now cops are going to run criminal history reports on everyone they stop? I'll bet dispatch and the street cops themselves will just love that idea.

Thats right. I ran about 90% of the people I stopped. That is how many Parolee's are picked up. It takes no longer 10-43 than it does a 10-27/29.

That may have been your policy, but if unlicensed OC were legalized, something like that would have to become SOP for just about everyone.

So is that what we want? Cops running full criminal background checks on everyone they contact? No privacy/civil liberties concerns over that?

After all, no one here has ever been delayed or denied on a NICS check due to inaccurate data, have they?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Let me repeat that. In Texas they DON"T NEED A LICENSE to carry concealed inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Unlicensed concealed carry is allowed in vehicles. Please explain how open carry "blends in" more than concealed carry.

I'm trying to stay on topic here. If you want to discuss unlicensed concealed carry in a motor vehicle, I would say that is a topic for a new thread.

I'm sorry but I saw a hole in your argument big enough to drive the space shuttle through.

Your observation about unlicensed concealed car carry is 100% correct.

But who says I am particularly thrilled with that law?

I understand that it represents an action by the lawmakers to fix once and for all the problems caused by a few stubborn DA's who were misusing Texas' long established "travelling" excemption. I'm not convinced that the current law is optimal, but I am willing to take a wait and see attitude towards it.

And note that Chas has stated that he expects an attempt in 2009 to modify or limit the law in some way.

I think that right now the law is a bit of an experiment. Hopefully, we will not see any significant (life and death) problems as time goes on. And a number of other states allow for unlicensed car carry, so it's not exactly like we are the first ones to try it.

All that having been said, there is something different about OC, licensed or not.

[frankie_the_yankee]

You're seriously going to argue with a former state trooper about what information is available to a cop on the street?

So you're saying, "Do you realize who he is?"

That's not an argument.

To his credit, carlson himself does not play that card.

I respect his first hand knowledge. And I have first hand knowledge of my own, though I do not want to disclose how.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Ideas and logic speak for themselves.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.
When I posed my scenario, nobody was committing an obvious crime. Two men walking down the street carrying openly. An officer sees them and MUST assume they are doing so legally(if OC were legal, licensed or unlicensed).
Then frankie jumps off on some tangent about declaring.
Hey frankie, I only have to declare once an officer asks for ID, and he CAN'T do that unless investigating a crime.
So, if no crime, then no inquiry for ID.

Sure.

But I am referring to the "routine" contacts that we all have with LE from time to time. If some credential is required that a previously convicted criminal can't get, his risk of getting popped for illegally carrying is greater than if he needs no credential at all.

If the risk is greater, fewer of them are likely to do it. (See ECON 101 or Human Nature 101.)

Most people would consider me to be a LAC. Yet I have had several contacts with LE in the last 7 years I have been in TX. And since I was carrying, I was required by law to declare, and show my CHL.

Judging from other posts and threads, this hardly seems uncommon.

And almost any street cop will tell you that they catch many, many BG's in situations that start out as a taillight out, a roll through a stop sign, or something similar.

The point is, whether a license is required or not, the officer must assume that he is carrying legally if OC were legal.

Sure. Until that person fails to signal when changing lanes, runs 8 mph over the limit, litters, etc. the cop has no business asking him for the time of day.

But if they do any of those things, they become fair game.

[CleverNickname]

If OC became legal, I doubt you would see anyone intent on criminal activity OCing, except in the very rare circumstance that he's planning on mowing down anyone who looks at him twice (and other random people along the way).

Feel free to doubt it all you want.

Until you can provide facts proving your point, your position is just as much conjecture as his is.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.

Thanks for the kind words.

Any evidence?