Open Carry impact

[TexasGal]

Carlson1, you are one of my favorite people. That is exactly how I feel when I am not armed. Thanks for the laugh.

[C-dub]

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.

[jmra]

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.

I could see an approach where the greeter makes the request and if the OCer doesn't comply the request is escalated up the chain to someone who has the recognized legal authority.
Our church will take a wait and see approach. I'm willing to bet it is something we will be able to address on an individual basis - did the 30.07 have a requirement for posting at every entrance? If so, that would simply not be feasible for our facilities.

[anygunanywhere]

As a LEO, I'm not looking forward to the influx of calls of someone OC a firearm. Unfortunately, we have to go and check out all calls no matter how silly. Hopefully it won't last long as I would rather spend my time answering legit calls.

Just have the dispatchers tell the caller that openly carried handguns are legal in Texas. Problem solved.

Unfortunately dispatchers do not have the authority to disregard a call for service. That permission would have to come from a supervisor. To do what you ask on a permanent basis ,the chief of police or sheriff would have to write policy allowing such.

OK. I pose the questions. What is so difficult for every Sheriff and police chief in Texas to teach their officers the new law and instruct them to respect citizen's right to openly carry their firearm in public? Why is doing right such a difficult thing to do? Is it really that difficult for rank and file officers to speak up and state their intent to respect citizens and the rule of law?

The OC law is clear. When it takes effect it will be legal. if someone calls and reports MWAG there should be instructions for the whole chain to follow. I have called 911 many times and consistently the response is the same. They ask questions to gather information. In the case of OC if the information leads to the conclusion that a crime is not in progress the caller should be informed as such and should be told goodby and have a nice day.

[mojo84]

First off, dispatchers do have the authority to not send an officer in response to a call for service. Try to get a cop out to investigate a minor auto accident when the cars are drivable and no one is injured in some of our larger cities. Same goes for auto break ins and personal property theft. The dispatchers qualify the calls and tell the people to call in a report or to come to the police station to file a report.

Second, If they do send an officer, the officer can show up and observe the person that is open carrying to see if they are acting suspicious or breaking the law before they make contact. If they aren't, they can note it and move on without bothering the law abiding citizen.

It all comes down to training, common sense and attitude of the people involved.

[The Annoyed Man]

All of this is going to be very interesting in my church. Our membership now is around 1,000 members actually registered as members, and average weekly attendance is on the order of 1,500. To date, the church has been very CHL friendly. I am not the only person on the worship team who has their CHL, although I am probably the only one who carries at all times. The others are younger than me and wear those "skinny clothes" and are less inclined to make fashion compromises to accommodate their choices of pistol. They're young, and they'll learn in time.

I don't know for a fact and I've never broached the question with him, but I suspect that my pastor carries, based on how he dresses. Actually, he dresses like a LOT of men with CHLs.......so that you'd never know he's armed, but if you were looking for that sort of thing, you can tell that he's dressed for it IF he does. He is an outgoing man at church, but I know that he is very discreet and private in his private life, so I respect that. And I do know that he is also friendly to CHL for others, because one of our members here on the forum used to go to my church, and he had a face to face talk with our pastor about the topic, and he was favorably disposed.

I also know that there are a number of off-duty LEOs who carry and who serve as members of the church's security team. One of them almost always sits directly across the aisle from where I sit. He knows I carry, and we talk guns and hunting all the time. Two of the others also know I carry. All of them are fine with it, and one of them who works for Dallas PD is an occasional range buddy of mine.

Ours is a generally conservative church. It presents itself as a modern non-denominational evangelical church, but it does have an affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention, and I know that my pastor thinks of himself as a baptist. (Personally, I'm not denominationally oriented. I am more concerned with sound theology than what the denomination is named.....but that's just me. Some of the most amazing Christians I've ever had the honor to call friend are either members of other Protestant denominations from my own, or are very involved Catholics. I think the saved are all in this together, regardless of what building they hang their hats in. But that is irrelevant to this conversation.) Anyway, all of that is to say that my church is generally gun-friendly..............but...........it is far more interested in obedience to Christ, and sharing his good news with others, than it is with making any kind of 2nd Amendment statement. We are NOT a seeker-driven church per se, but we DO go out of our way to be graciously welcoming to people who don't know Jesus, and to make them feel at home and appreciated for being there. If they are going to come to faith, the Spirit will make that happen, but it's not going to happen at our church if we drive people away. And that is where 30.07 comes in.

I don't know of any relevant ongoing discussions among my church's leadership on the topic, but they are generally on top of developments. It would not surprise me in the least if they started posting 30.07 signs at some point. I suspect that it would happen in response to people beginning to OC, rather than posting them preemptively. They are not at all anti-gun, but they are on a higher purpose than gun politics. My church is in a transition period. The lease on our building is up in 2016 and the owners are not interested in our renewing it. Consequently, we have made an offer on 7.25 acres on TX-26, just north of the GCISD football stadium and the offer has been accepted so we are now under contract for that land. We've gotten the city council's go-ahead, and we've raised the necessary money to secure the bank loan to begin construction (as well as having, to date, already secured nearly 75% of the amount needed to cover the total land/construction costs) and we will begin construction on our new church campus soon. The reason this is important is that we are deliberately placing ourselves in an area representing the most disadvantaged residents of our city, so that we can better serve that area. Many of those residents are immigrants, and many of them are probably - because of where they came from and the political histories of their nations of origins - afraid of men with guns. Where they come from, a man with a gun is either a bully with a badge, or a cartel member. One doesn't have to be a genius to predict that openly carried guns on our campus might discourage some of those people from coming forward to take advantage of the services we will be offering to the community. Among those services will be a preschool, and that presents its own set of issues.

Beyond that, we are a suburban church, not a rural one. A small rural church with a homogenous congregation, all of whom are familiar with firearms, is a far different one from a larger suburban church with people from varying backgrounds, some of who are not necessarily 2nd Amendment supporters. For reasons like this, I don't think you can rationally make a blanket statement about whether or not a church should or should not post a 30.07 sign - particularly when the church might still be concealed carry friendly.

So there are a number of factors going into this that really don't have a thing to do with how either our leadership or most of the members feel about guns, and I suspect that we're going to end up posting 30.07 signs as a result of those higher considerations.

[A-R]

Anygunanywhere & mojo84,

I won't/can't disagree with your logic. And I applaud the efficiency of your proposals - such streamlining would be a welcome improvement & benefit in a profession (LE) that is often understaffed and overworked.

But it's also a profession that is overseen by leaders who are directly elected (Sheriff, Constable) or who (Police Chief) serve at the privilege of leaders who are elected (Mayor, Council).

Point being, the first time a MWAG call is "disregarded" (no LEO makes scene) in the efficient way you propose and that MWAG causes some problem - anything from as petty as placing an influential member of the populace "in fear" to shooting up a school - then that directly or indirectly elected leader will be crucified in the court of pubic opinion and likely in the next election.

A lot of LEO response to seemingly trivial calls for service (especially in smaller departments) is a combination of PR & CYA (public relations and cover your assets). This is especially true in recent times with LEO's every action hyper scrutinized and a general anti-cop mentality becoming increasingly more pronounced. It's less prevalent in larger departments around large metro areas who can more easy justify ignoring minor fender benders etc. because a) they have budget for a technology work-around (go to this web site and fill out your own report), and b) their volume of higher priority calls makes ignoring trivial calls easier to explain.

Again, not saying this is "right" nor logical. Just saying it is what it is.

That said, the problem with the current OC proposal is that it creates a defacto grey area for LE in that any MWAG "could be" totally legitimate and legal or could be a serious crime (UCW) and there is no way to differentiate by simple observation. In your mind, you think "law abiding, leave me alone" but in the mind of average sheeple and especially hoplophobes they think "MWAG = possibility of criminal/evil intent or action".

It's a fine line. One that will require trust, understanding, and empathy for all involved.

A "positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

LEO: "Nice pistol. What is that, a _____?"

MWAG: "yes, it's a ____."

LEO: "Shoots good?"

MWAG: "yep"

LEO: "you have a license for it, right?"

MWAG: "yeah"

LEO: "Great. Hey, sorry to bother you, but would you mind showing me your license? We got a call from a concerned citizen. Would really help if I could just confirm to my dispatch that you're licensed so they can disregard any further calls about a man with a gun matching your description."

MWAG: "sure, here ya go" (hands CHL to LEO).

LEO: "thank you, Mr. _____. Sorry again to bother you. Be safe."

LEO to dispatch: "Subject wearing _____ is licensed. Any further calls may be disregarded or forwarded to me for officer response to caller by telephone. Back in service, no report."

[mojo84]

A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

[A-R]

A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

RE: SCOTUS decision on traffic stop initiated solely on matching description from 911 call.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 0_3fb4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to guns, like you said there's going to be an adjustment period. Mutual understanding and cooperation during that adjustment period will help, not hinder, the effective implementation of open carry. Hostility toward perceived police "harassment" will do the opposite.

[AJSully421]

Anygunanywhere & mojo84,

...

A "positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

LEO: "Nice pistol. What is that, a _____?"

MWAG: "yes, it's a ____."

LEO: "Shoots good?"

MWAG: "yep"

LEO: "you have a license for it, right?"

MWAG: "yeah"

LEO: "Great. Hey, sorry to bother you, but would you mind showing me your license? We got a call from a concerned citizen. Would really help if I could just confirm to my dispatch that you're licensed so they can disregard any further calls about a man with a gun matching your description."

MWAG: "sure, here ya go" (hands CHL to LEO).

LEO: "thank you, Mr. _____. Sorry again to bother you. Be safe."

LEO to dispatch: "Subject wearing _____ is licensed. Any further calls may be disregarded or forwarded to me for officer response to caller by telephone. Back in service, no report."

I agree, the above would go over real smooth with me.

[mojo84]

A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

RE: SCOTUS decision on traffic stop initiated solely on matching description from 911 call.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 0_3fb4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to guns, like you said there's going to be an adjustment period. Mutual understanding and cooperation during that adjustment period will help, not hinder, the effective implementation of open carry. Hostility toward perceived police "harassment" will do the opposite.

Thanks for the SCOTUS ruling. I did not read it all as it didn't seem to pertain to what we are duscussing. The case involved someone calling and reporting someone possibly driving under the influence. That's completely different than someone calling to report someone simply driving a vehicle or simply open carrying a gun.

The point and principle are the same even though one involved a gun and the other a car.

[A-R]

Mojo84,

Your comparison (gun vs car) on the surface seems apples-to-apples, but we all know it's not. Cars and DLs have become a normal part of society. So nobody pays it no mind. Open carry handguns are not yet "normal" in Texas and won't be for a while. Perhaps when the first DLs were issued, or the first horseless buggies appeared in public, police then responded to numerous concerns.

That said, there are also subtle changes in the wording a caller uses that will elevate the response above "ma'am, open carry of handguns is legal now." The SCOTUS link refered to what is generically termed a "reckless driver" meaning someone driving erratically or dangerously - could be DWI, could be a Fast-n-Furious wannabe, could just be a "jerk" late for work, or could be someone driving in a reasonable manner that the caller "perceives" to be reckless. Point is someone called 911 to report reckless driving.

Now, to put that in a gun context, certainly if the call is literally just "a man has a holstered pistol at the Wal Mart" then eventually those calls should be explained by dispatch and not put out for patrol response. But realistically all a 911 caller really has to do to get an available patrol unit in route is articulate some perceived danger. Same as with a reckless driver. The reality or reasonableness of the actual danger posed is WHY police are sent - it's what they are there to determine. Making that determination is not the duty of the caller nor dispatcher.

[mojo84]

Mojo84,

Your comparison (gun vs car) on the surface seems apples-to-apples, but we all know it's not. Cars and DLs have become a normal part of society. So nobody pays it no mind. Open carry handguns are not yet "normal" in Texas and won't be for a while. Perhaps when the first DLs were issued, or the first horseless buggies appeared in public, police then responded to numerous concerns.

That said, there are also subtle changes in the wording a caller uses that will elevate the response above "ma'am, open carry of handguns is legal now." The SCOTUS link refered to what is generically termed a "reckless driver" meaning someone driving erratically or dangerously - could be DWI, could be a Fast-n-Furious wannabe, could just be a "jerk" late for work, or could be someone driving in a reasonable manner that the caller "perceives" to be reckless. Point is someone called 911 to report reckless driving.

Now, to put that in a gun context, certainly if the call is literally just "a man has a holstered pistol at the Wal Mart" then eventually those calls should be explained by dispatch and not put out for patrol response. But realistically all a 911 caller really has to do to get an available patrol unit in route is articulate some perceived danger. Same as with a reckless driver. The reality or reasonableness of the actual danger posed is WHY police are sent - it's what they are there to determine. Making that determination is not the duty of the caller nor dispatcher.

See, you keep adding that the caller says there is reason and officer is needed other than just someone driving or wearing a holstered gun. I used the analogy of me calling 911 and reporting A-R is driving. I didn't say driving erratically or recklessly. I am willing to see your point as stated above. You seem to be unwilling to see my point that just driving or wearing a gun is not sufficient reason to make contact even if someone calls. I also conceded there will an adjustment period till society becomes more used to seeing open carried guns in public.

Let's not get so caught up on our own arguments that we can't see it from the other's point of view and want to just win the debate. We both have valid points from two different perspectives. Mine from a law abiding citizen that is doing nothing wrong and you from the perspective of a cop or cop's family that wants to protect the citizenry and avoid liability.

Again, if the cop is dispatched and he observes the citizen doing nothing wrong before he makes contact and isn't acting suspicious, he can just as easily notify dispatch there is nothing going on, contact not needed and back in service. If the caller said the carrier was doing something wrong or acting suspicious, by all means the cop should make contact. Works the same way with driving.

[A-R]

Mojo84,

I have addressed the purely "man with a holstered pistol" call numerous times over 2-3 replies. I'm adding subtle changes simply to illustrate how those subtle changes can drastically affect response.

As I said the calls that are purely MWAG and no other element should in the bubble of a perfect world be handled in the hands off, observe-and-report method you propose. But there are reasons, especially at first, why they may not be. This is pragmatic reality, not idealistic perfection.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There are no 5th Cir. cases directly on point when dealing with reasonable suspicion related to open-carry. However, there are Fourth Amendment cases from other circuits. All of these quotes are taken from U.S. v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013).

• The level of suspicion must be a 'particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.' [citation omitted] As such, 'the officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."
  
  Instead, we encounter yet another situation where the Government attempts to meet its Terry burden by patching together a set of innocent, suspicion-free facts, which cannot rationally be relied on to establish reasonable suspicion.
  
  Being a felon in possession of a firearm (or violating §46.02) is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states. (Citing United States v. King 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993)
  
  Troupe's lawful display of his lawfully possessed firearm cannot be the justification for Troupe's detention.

The Dutton/Rinaldi Amendment is a win win situation for law-abiding Texans and law enforcement officers. In the absence of a 5th Circuit case on point, it provides clear guidance as to when Fourth Amendment requirements are met and when they are not. As noted elsewhere, openly carrying a handgun is not sufficient to justify an investigatory stop, but when other factors are in play, then such a stop would meet constitutional requirements.

Chas.