Police compromising your concealment

[Purplehood]

I think the whole situation is totally outrageous.

- No prior notice was given.
- CHL holders would be "out'ed" in front of friends and neighbors
- Was this procedure previously approved at the board or HOA meeting?

In any event, the outting of CHL holders is reprehensible.

Call me annoyed. [not to be confused with any other posters "annoyed" handle on this forum]

[frazzled]

Our Seasoned Citizens have the right to be crotchety to anyone at any time. Use that right to its fullest...

[YabuUS]

I think the whole situation is totally outrageous.

- No prior notice was given.
- CHL holders would be "out'ed" in front of friends and neighbors
- Was this procedure previously approved at the board or HOA meeting?

In any event, the outting of CHL holders is reprehensible.

Call me annoyed. [not to be confused with any other posters "annoyed" handle on this forum]

Thanks Purplehood, and all the others who have commented on the situation. I am very pro-police, but I don't understand why they have a problem being in a meeting with CHL holders who may be carrying their weapons legally. If they are afraid to be around people carrying guns then I should think they would be afraid to get out of their cars. The whole situation seems stupid to me. But, as my grandfather taught me, it's a lot easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get our of trouble. With that in mind I will most likely not attend this meeting period. I have no intention of advertising to the whole complex that I am armed. I wish the police had more common sense.

[Mithras61]

I think the whole situation is totally outrageous.

- No prior notice was given.
- CHL holders would be "out'ed" in front of friends and neighbors
- Was this procedure previously approved at the board or HOA meeting?

In any event, the outting of CHL holders is reprehensible.

Call me annoyed. [not to be confused with any other posters "annoyed" handle on this forum]

I also agree with the poster who suggested complaining to the officer's supervisor. Asking in a group where some are sure to be frightened by the response if given in the affirmative is unreasonable in the extreme. Outing someone in this fashion could be construed as attempting to cause a scene or a panic. The officer should know better than this, and if he can't either find a way to handle it more discretely, or even better stop harrasing innocent CHLers, then he needs to get a different job!

[YabuUS]

I also agree with the poster who suggested complaining to the officer's supervisor.

Not sure taking it up with the supervisor would do any good. The officer who made the "request" was a sergeant. His supervisor, a Lieutenant, was standing behind him surveying the room and nodding as the sergeant spoke. Not much point in complaining to him.

As a footnote let me add this. Back in 1995 when the concealed carry law was passed, I was acquainted with a couple of Houston police officers and had coffee with them from time to time. At one of our coffee sessions I asked one of these fellows how he felt about the new law. He said that as far as he knew the Houston Police Dept. was not very happy with the new law. They didn't like the idea of citizens walking around with guns. He thought it was a very bad idea. I wonder if the problem we have been discussing on this thread is not a sign that there is some lingering resentment within the police department over this law.

[bdickens]

That lieutenant has a boss, too.


I'd have kept my mouth shut and kept my pistol.

[Mithras61]

I also agree with the poster who suggested complaining to the officer's supervisor.

Not sure taking it up with the supervisor would do any good. The officer who made the "request" was a sergeant. His supervisor, a Lieutenant, was standing behind him surveying the room and nodding as the sergeant spoke. Not much point in complaining to him.

As a footnote let me add this. Back in 1995 when the concealed carry law was passed, I was acquainted with a couple of Houston police officers and had coffee with them from time to time. At one of our coffee sessions I asked one of these fellows how he felt about the new law. He said that as far as he knew the Houston Police Dept. was not very happy with the new law. They didn't like the idea of citizens walking around with guns. He thought it was a very bad idea. I wonder if the problem we have been discussing on this thread is not a sign that there is some lingering resentment within the police department over this law.

Regarding the sergeant & his lieutenant, take it on up the chain of command until your concerns are addressed or at least taken seriously. This isn't an "embarrassment" to the CHLer, its sowing fear & distrust, and suggesting that those who are most likely in need of such protection (a handgun) cannot be trusted to have one.

I think you may be right about the lingering resentment (as evidenced by some spokesmodel for the department recently in blaming the increase in police shootings on legal firearms carriers - sort of "its your own darn fault"), but I really don't care if their feelings are hurt. What they are doing is a violation of the statutes (I don't recall the exact citation, but they can only disarm you if they reasonably believe it is necessary for the safety of the CHL holder and/or the officer, but that's the only allowed reason, and in such a setting their fear isn't reasonable).

[ELB]

What the HPD did was stupid beyond belief. Any argument about 'safety' or 'security' is hogwash. If you have the time and energy, you should complain long and loud up through the police department hierarchy and beyond. If they allow this to stand without an apology, then it is pretty clear the policy of the HPD to not trust law-abiding citizens, and in that case law abiding citizens should not trust the HPD, and I don't care how many "good" cops are on the force -- the organization is not to be trusted.

And no, I would not have said a word at the meeting. I would have left -- not in lieu of handing in my gun, but in disgust.

[Purplehood]

What the HPD did was stupid beyond belief. Any argument about 'safety' or 'security' is hogwash. If you have the time and energy, you should complain long and loud up through the police department hierarchy and beyond. If they allow this to stand without an apology, then it is pretty clear the policy of the HPD to not trust law-abiding citizens, and in that case law abiding citizens should not trust the HPD, and I don't care how many "good" cops are on the force -- the organization is not to be trusted.

And no, I would not have said a word at the meeting. I would have left -- not in lieu of handing in my gun, but in disgust.

I would ask, loudly, on the way out, "By the way, who at the [board, HOA, insert applicable organization here] authorized this compromise of state laws"?

[The Annoyed Man]

I think the whole situation is totally outrageous.

- No prior notice was given.
- CHL holders would be "out'ed" in front of friends and neighbors
- Was this procedure previously approved at the board or HOA meeting?

In any event, the outting of CHL holders is reprehensible.

Call me annoyed. [not to be confused with any other posters "annoyed" handle on this forum]

YAAAAAARRRRRR.

I agree. As far as I am concerned: 1) the officer in question did not ask the OP for his ID, so he wasn't even in a gray area if he chose to keep quiet and carry; 2) ever since 09/01/09, there is no penalty for failing to divulge your CHL to an officer who asks to see your ID; 3) there was no 30.06 posting; 4) the OP was not under arrest, and therefore his gun and license were not being seized; and 5) the meeting is not covered under PC 46.03.

The only possible claim the officer can make is under GC 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFER TO DISARM. But, for that to happen, he has to know that you are armed; and for that to happen, he has to ask you (not a crowd) if you are carrying.

I would have either ignored him or left. And I sure as hades would have fired off a letter to the officer in question, with a CC to his superiors, calling his wisdom into question by asking CHL holders to out themselves, when the DPS and the state law specifically encourage us not to. Further, I would ask for a written letter of apology, just to make the point to this officer that, just like the criminals he arrests will face consequences for their bad behavior, he must face consequences for his own, because he is held to a higher standard.

[jimlongley]

Sorry, didn't mean that last to post twice. Don't know how that happened. The meeting is not off-limits to CHL holders, it's just that the police want to know who has a license and who is carrying. If you are carrying, they want the weapon while the meeting is going on. The new law that just went into effect says I don't have to volunteer the fact that I have a CHL; but when an officer asks you point blank "Do you have a CHL?", I don't think playing dumb or (even worse) lying to the police is a good think to do. I know the police have the authority to disarm me, but doing it in front of the crowd would be terribly uncomfortable for me. If I did as they ask then everybody would know I carry a gun and I'm not comfortable with that. Leaving the weapon at home won't get me out of revealing the fact that I have a CHL if I'm asked by the police. I would love to hear Charles Cotton's opinion on this.

If the police officer running the meeting has ordered all CHL holders to self identify and to turn in their weapons, no matter what the reason, then he has effectively made the meeting off limits to CHL holders. This would be a verbal notice from someone in authority over the premises, and my reaction would be to get up and leave, and then write a letter citing my reasons for doing so without identifying myself as a CHL holder. I have done this twice in the past with about 50/50 results, and in both cases I was not carrying, and one was even before I was eligible to obtain a CHL.

CC the letter to the police chief, the person in authority of the place where the meeting was held, and an attorney (preferably one with which you have a relationship, but the Attorney General would do), state clearly and concisely that you are uncomfortable being in a location where the police are disarming law abiding citizens. And don't accept the argument that they are allowed to do that, the circumstances under which they are allowed to disarm CHLs are different from a meeting where they have just asked all CHLs to self-identify and disarm.

[flintknapper]

If I am understanding this correcty, HPD is coming to your complex to provide a service, BUT this is by invitation....or "acceptance" of an offer. I would think....that is no wise...does that make them in "Authority of the premises". They are in fact.......guests.

If they can get away with requesting all CHL's to surrender their weapons in this setting....then what is to prevent them from walking into the nearest restaurant and doing the same thing?

The provisions by which LEO are allowed to disarm are as follows:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.

(a) A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

==============

Will someone please explain to me how any LEO would "reasonably" believe that a group of Senior Citizens (or individuals) that have gone through the CHL process, are law abiding citizens AND are there in support/co-operation of the police dept to learn how to better be safe....would be a threat!

This is laughable and the person who alluded to the "attitude" that some police have for being "the only person present with a gun" hit it right on the head.

No way in Hades would I let this slide. This will continue to worsen unless challenged.

Flint.

[RocTrac]

Please do not become one of the "silent majority" Complain up the chain of command until you get a response. Get the NRA and TSRA involved. Make noise. If you let it slide now, it will happen again and not to just you.

[karder]

I agree with the posters who suggest that it would not be necessary to turn over your firearm. I don't think that a blanket question to a crowd of people is legally sufficient to require you to disarm. I try to avoid problems, so if I was in your shoes, I personally would not go back; however, I would never want to suggest that you should allow yourself to be bullied. My guess is that the "turn over your gun" is a way to intimidate the CHL holders. I would file a formal complaint and report it to the NRA.

[jimlongley]

If I am understanding this correcty, HPD is coming to your complex to provide a service, BUT this is by invitation....or "acceptance" of an offer. I would think....that is no wise...does that make them in "Authority of the premises". They are in fact.......guests.

If they can get away with requesting all CHL's to surrender their weapons in this setting....then what is to prevent them from walking into the nearest restaurant and doing the same thing?

The provisions by which LEO are allowed to disarm are as follows:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.

(a) A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

==============

Will someone please explain to me how any LEO would "reasonably" believe that a group of Senior Citizens (or individuals) that have gone through the CHL process, are law abiding citizens AND are there in support/co-operation of the police to dept to learn how to better be safe....would be a threat!

This is laughable and the person who alluded to the "attitude" that some police have for being "the only person present with a gun" hit it right on the head.

No way in Hades would I let this slide. This will continue to worsen unless challenged.

Flint.

The language "before discharging . . ." included in the statute leads me to believe that this authority is predicated on the CHL holder's presence at a crime scene or some such, where the CHL holder was required to notify as part of his/her presence not at a civic function.

Like I said, CC the Attorney General, and maybe the news media.