CHL holders and Police Contact

[Abraham]

CHL holders have, if you will, been given a "Seal Of Approval" as good guys LEO's DON'T have to worry about by virtue of criminal background checks, passing of tests, etc. We have to acqire a lot of "mandatory knowledge" in order to qualify. You'd think they'd think positively towards us. We AREN'T criminals or we wouldn't be allowed to carry. Yet, some seem to have a built in fear of us or maybe it tests some egos...?

It seems rather ironic that LEO's are very well informed regarding the bad guys, but some choose to remain ignorant about the good guys.

I wonder why they don't have to have "mandatory knowledge requirements" of CHL holders?

We certainly have to have a lot of "mandatory knowledge requirements" in order to be CHL holders.

[JasonH]

My CHL instructor was a major (or something, I don't know the terminology - he oversaw quite a few officers) and he told us that he had been correcting LEOs bad attitudes about CHLs for years. He said in a lot of officer's eyes they saw the right to carry as something that should be exclusive to themselves.

That's not a knock on law enforcement, that's just a message I'm passing on directly from an authority within a department. I've only had one experience (which I posted about yesterday) and it was just as he said it might be.

[Rokyudai]

Yes, there are a lot of folks (LEO and those who are not) that have a problem when they perceive others as having abilities or benefits whom they believe should not. It's safe to say that this line of thinking can be attributed to ignorance (as in lack of knowledge) and/or ego (disproportionate sense of self worth and accomplishment). Newsflash: We are no different.

I'm of the mind to think that we all tend to view life with varying degrees of criticism and sense of justice, right or wrong. 'We' can (and it happens here quite often) engage in a constant debate over which professions should be absolutely aware of every dictum, clause, correlate, sub category, alternate view, and then praise the praiseworthy and darn the darned for how they acted. At any rate, I at the end of the day have to answer to only one person for what I did to make our rights and cause understood to the one's that have the most difficult time understanding them. We can all pat each other on the backs for sticking it to the man but we aren't getting anywhere. Our larger battles are in supporting those who would help in reforming CC legislation for the better,but, our daily skirmishes will likely not yield much more than entertainment on a gun board.

I love to hear when a forum member has 'converted' someone or signed someone up for a CHL class, or joined the NRA, TSRA. I think these are our best hopes for teaching others what it means to be a responsible, armed, polite citizen.

Rok

[CompVest]

Well I might begin to understand the argument that LOE's should be the ones with guns if the Supreme court hadn't ruled that they don't have to protect us if they don't want to. That being the case I want to and need to be able to protect myself.

[brianko]

I've had a couple of encounters (at least four off the top of my head -- Dallas Co. Sheriff's Dept, DPS, and a couple of local PD's) with LEO's since receiving my CHL several years ago (nothing serious, I just tend to drive a bit fast). I've never had a bad experience with a LEO with regards to my CHL. Perhaps -- and I'm not making any kind of accusations, just simply stating an opinion -- there is something those who are having these bad experiences are doing (subconsciously?) to make the encounters head south. Personally, I don't ever engage in chit-chat with LEOs, try to argue a point, or otherwise do something that will antagonize the encounter. There is simply too much of an imbalance of authority in those situations. Sometimes I get warnings, sometimes I get a ticket. But never any flak about my CHL.

[rm9792]

Well I might begin to understand the argument that LOE's should be the ones with guns if the Supreme court hadn't ruled that they don't have to protect us if they don't want to. That being the case I want to and need to be able to protect myself.

Even if they ruled that LEO was required to protect us, the laws of physics cant be denied. LEO will simply not be available when needed.

[KRM45]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that simply because someone has a CHL means that they are no longer capable of being a threat. See the thread about the CHL at the ball game if you need verification.

CHL holders have, if you will, been given a "Seal Of Approval" as good guys LEO's DON'T have to worry about by virtue of criminal background checks, passing of tests, etc. We have to acqire a lot of "mandatory knowledge" in order to qualify. You'd think they'd think positively towards us. We AREN'T criminals or we wouldn't be allowed to carry. Yet, some seem to have a built in fear of us or maybe it tests some egos...?

It seems rather ironic that LEO's are very well informed regarding the bad guys, but some choose to remain ignorant about the good guys.

I wonder why they don't have to have "mandatory knowledge requirements" of CHL holders?

We certainly have to have a lot of "mandatory knowledge requirements" in order to be CHL holders.

[Elvis]

Yes, there are a lot of folks (LEO and those who are not) that have a problem when they perceive others as having abilities or benefits whom they believe should not. It's safe to say that this line of thinking can be attributed to ignorance (as in lack of knowledge) and/or ego (disproportionate sense of self worth and accomplishment). Newsflash: We are no different.

I'm of the mind to think that we all tend to view life with varying degrees of criticism and sense of justice, right or wrong. 'We' can (and it happens here quite often) engage in a constant debate over which professions should be absolutely aware of every dictum, clause, correlate, sub category, alternate view, and then praise the praiseworthy and darn the damned for how they acted. At any rate, I at the end of the day have to answer to only one person for what I did to make our rights and cause understood to the one's that have the most difficult time understanding them. We can all pat each other on the backs for sticking it to the man but we aren't getting anywhere. Our larger battles are in supporting those who would help in reforming CC legislation for the better,but, our daily skirmishes will likely not yield much more than entertainment on a gun board.

I love to hear when a forum member has 'converted' someone or signed someone up for a CHL class, or joined the NRA, TSRA. I think these are our best hopes for teaching others what it means to be a responsible, armed, polite citizen.

Rok

Well said sir...

[CompVest]

I have converted a few women and gotten a few NRA members but there are sooooo many people....

[mr.72]

I recently heard a story about a church in NYC with 16,000 members. Seems like a big church, right? The pastor was asked about how good of a job they are doing with so many members and he replied that he was not that impressed since one city block in NYC is 30,000 people.

My father-in-law is a police officer and very pro-gun, they own tons of guns, etc. But when he found out I was going to get a CHL he tried to talk me out of it, and even tried to talk me out of carrying in the car. So even the most pro-gun, pro-rights LEOs can still not be on board with regular folks carrying guns.

[CHL/LEO]

...the Supreme court hadn't ruled that they don't have to protect us if they don't want to.

I believe what the Supreme Court ruled (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) is that law enforcement doesn't have a "duty" or "responsibility" to protect us as individuals, but to protect society as a whole. This is quite a bit different than "if they don't want to".

If LE had a duty to protect everyone individually and then didn't, there would be a liability on their part for not doing so. This particular Supreme Court ruling derived from a lawsuit filed in regards to an individual who was killed by her estranged husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She had a restraining order against him and the argument in the lawsuit was that LE knew about the threats, knew about the restraining order and still did not protect her.

It seems like it took the Supreme Court to tell us what the "Court of Common Sense" should have been able to do - that a LEO cannot be assigned 24/7 to every person for their own protection. Thank goodness that everyone on this forum understands that and has taken the steps necessary to do so.

[Abraham]

Rokyudai,

"...debate over which professions should be absolutely aware of every dictum, clause, correlate, sub category, alternate view ..."

The above excerpt relegates knowledge of CHL specifics by law enforcement to a category of pish posh, easily overlooked minutia. There are hundreds of thousands of CHL holders in the state of Texas. Dismissing LEO's regarding their haphazard knowledge of CHL particulars with a cavalier wave of the hand is to view this impressive number of law abiding people, who've gone through quite a bit of time, effort and money to qualify, does a disservice to this group.

LEO's don't have to be attorneys to understand how and where such citizens are empowered.

KRM45,

Of course you're right.

That same thinking applies to LEO's too.

But, the overwhelming majority in both groups are generally the good guys.

[AggieC05]

my first experience with an LEO was neither positive or negative... other than when he started asking me about my carry weapon which is a KelTec P11 I told him what it was and his response was "Well thats a pretty high dollar weapon isn't it son?" LOL! I told him actually its quite the opposite its a subcompact 9" that holds 10+1 and can be had for $200 or less. Go country bumpkin highway patrol.

[Rokyudai]

The above excerpt relegates knowledge of CHL specifics by law enforcement to a category of pish posh, easily overlooked minutia. There are hundreds of thousands of CHL holders in the state of Texas. Dismissing LEO's regarding their haphazard knowledge of CHL particulars with a cavalier wave of the hand is to view this impressive number of law abiding people, who've gone through quite a bit of time, effort and money to qualify, does a disservice to this group.

Abraham,
Not pish posh for sure and not entirely dismissing a professional's deficit in knowledge either but let me try to explain in a 1000 words or less at the risk of going off topic (I jinxed myself for sure) ...before I venture further into the flaming chasm-- an open disclaimer: Not for one moment am I attempting to be insulting to my fellow forum folks whom MANY have personally helped me develop a passion for our 2A rights more so over the past year or so, as well as to help me be more critical of my conduct when choosing to exercise them-- but I'm not ready to agree with you that having a CHL makes one inherently 'good' either. It is what it is: a license to carry concealed for which we complied with the current, legislative requirements of in order to obtain it (and rightfully so); from that point, I believe it's our unscripted and inherent responsibility to become the bigger person (as in letting most perceived slights slide off you), to be the ambassadors stretching out a hand to those who may just as likely spit in it all while remaining civil, polite...and armed . Sound familiar? LEO's have to do this daily. We of course are not charged with their duties, but by society's fondness of labeling groups, we are obviously a loved as well as demonized bunch too given the motus dontcha' think?

The way I read your OP, you brought up several concerns: one of an LEO's CHL-specific knowledge base (or lack there of), one of ego/attitude on the LEO's side when interacting with the public which you find fault with, and finally what you believe our 'credentials' should say about our good standing in society...and I will agree that they all have the potential to help us as much as create problems , but I would be careful believing credentials can translate into automatic, good person status alone.

We have all read in the news about individuals whom whether LE or not have made bad decisions/choices and were seemingly in good standing prior to that. Heck, the cause to help de-vilify gun ownership/cc'ing suffered another black eye thanks to that fellow in Lubbock just a day or two ago. He, who had a CHL, was arrested after unholstering his gun during an altercation at his kid's soccer game. Granted an extreme case and one for which does not contain all the facts just yet, but it certainly does not take much more than 1 such incident to shape the negative opinion of a weaker mind or one on the fence . I don't know this guy's background but he did have a CHL. So where do we go after that? Where do others look to for further reconciliation or for lack of a better term 'harmony' after a fall from legal grace'? He does not represent me. He does not represent you. He represented himself through his actions. That's the gift and curse of choice .


Rok

[Abraham]

Rokyudai,

Please read my response to KRM45.