TexasCHLforum.com

Does anyone know, what the general view/opinion cops have regarding us, the CHL holders?

Are they being simply Texan and approve of the responsible civilians, who have passed the FBI background check, being armed?

Do they simply tolerate us and view us as thorns in their sides?

Does it vary from city to city based on the city's prevalence of gun control proponents being in charge?

I am just curious. I know in some blue states cops almost hate gun owners with concealed carry permits, but I have not heard much about cops in Texas. Logically, they should be happy that the law-abiding good guys are armed and ready to defend themselves and their families, but logic doesn't always apply when it comes to guns and politics.

Thank you.

In my experience, "cops" are no different than any other sector of society. You are going to find those who are very supportive, those who are indifferent, and those who feel that Law Enforcement should be the only people armed.

jmra wrote:In my experience, "cops" are no different than any other sector of society. You are going to find those who are very supportive, those who are indifferent, and those who feel that Law Enforcement should be the only people armed.

Yes. Cops are not monolithic. They're humans like the rest of us. Some are strong supporters. Some are not. The ones on this forum are obviously strong supporters.

Most of my coworkers are pro-gun rights. Some don't care. A few are adamant about "only cops should have this or that gun," usually "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines."

The majority either don't care, or pack themselves, and are fairly pro gun rights.

Of all of the LEOs I have had occasion to talk about such things with, including 2 different Citizens' Police Academies and numerous ride alongs, only a couple have ever expressed what I would consider a "negative attitude" toward CHLs in general.

That one was the School Resource Officer at the school my wife works at. When I pointed out the non-compliant 30.06 signs posted on the edge of school property, he talked over the top of me and insisted that he and the scool district would arrest and prosecute any CHL found to be carrying anywhere on school property.

It was his attitude and statements that encouraged me to contact the school district about it. The school district basically stated the same things, almost word for word, leading me to believe that he was merely parroting a school policy directive.

I understand that the school district seems to have changed their tune since then, although the signs remain in place.

The other was when I was a TSA screener at Love Field, when I pointed out that: A) the signs were just flat the wrong ones; and B) that Love, being government property could not be effectively posted, they came close to threatening to arrest me then and there, stating that the signs were enforceable, and that they would, and that if I thought different I was being an obstructionist.

I see both of those circumstances as anti-CHL, and have continued to carry.

The signs are still up at Love.

glock27 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Of all of the LEOs I have had occasion to talk about such things with, including 2 different Citizens' Police Academies and numerous ride alongs, only a couple have ever expressed what I would consider a "negative attitude" toward CHLs in general.

That one was the School Resource Officer at the school my wife works at. When I pointed out the non-compliant 30.06 signs posted on the edge of school property, he talked over the top of me and insisted that he and the scool district would arrest and prosecute any CHL found to be carrying anywhere on school property.

It was his attitude and statements that encouraged me to contact the school district about it. The school district basically stated the same things, almost word for word, leading me to believe that he was merely parroting a school policy directive.

I understand that the school district seems to have changed their tune since then, although the signs remain in place.

The other was when I was a TSA screener at Love Field, when I pointed out that: A) the signs were just flat the wrong ones; and B) that Love, being government property could not be effectively posted, they came close to threatening to arrest me then and there, stating that the signs were enforceable, and that they would, and that if I thought different I was being an obstructionist.

I see both of those circumstances as anti-CHL, and have continued to carry.

The signs are still up at Love.

Why would you point out an invalid sign? It gives us the chance to legally carry there. The fact that you brought it up dismisses your ability to disregard an invalid sign because your pretty much asking them to give you a verbal notice. What does telling them benefit you? It only bring their ignorance to a level where they are aware the sign is wrong and then can change it and then you've just put all chl holders attendance out the window for that place of business

It is Love Field, owned by the City of Dallas. Even verbal notice is invalid.

The other is an ISD - also invalid unless in a building, then illegal by statute and no 30.06 required.

jimlongley was spot on educating the wrong headed, ill informed regarding the law.

Yes, if a business has an invalid "no guns" sign keep quiet about it, but in Jim's experiences that wasn't the case.

If more people point out that institutions are in the wrong, maybe they'll improve with compliance, but they certainly won't in we remain mum.

jmra wrote:In my experience, "cops" are no different than any other sector of society. You are going to find those who are very supportive, those who are indifferent, and those who feel that Law Enforcement should be the only people armed.

I also see the brass often being more anti then the normal beat cop. The liberals do believe in "certain classes" owning certain guns, but usually the leo's tend to be more on the right side of the spectrum. CHL's get stopped all the time. We only read a few posts here or there. If they were always what some perceive as a bad contact we would read more about that.

In Texas, especially in the more rural areas, CHL holders are more likely viewed as aids to, allies of, law enforcement, contrasted to the urban areas where it is somewhat less likely.

In California, of course, the attitude was more "them against us" anyone with a weapon was viewed as an opponent if not an enemy. The Chief of Police in most cities in San Diego were enthusiastically opposed to CCW permits and the Sheriff who had the authority to issue them, would rather not, but realized he had to at least issue some or spend time in court, which he is.

There is an interesting sociological study in this.

JALLEN wrote:In Texas, especially in the more rural areas, CHL holders are more likely viewed as aids to, allies of, law enforcement, contrasted to the urban areas where it is somewhat less likely.

In California, of course, the attitude was more "them against us" anyone with a weapon was viewed as an opponent if not an enemy. The Chief of Police in most cities in San Diego were enthusiastically opposed to CCW permits and the Sheriff who had the authority to issue them, would rather not, but realized he had to at least issue some or spend time in court, which he is.

There is an interesting sociological study in this.

I never really understood the negative attitude of some law enforcement officials toward concealed carry citizens. They MUST know that the bad guys will have guns no matter what, but the good guys must obey the law and go through background checks to get the guns. Those, who would choose to shoot up places with people don't need a permit, but statistically, if an armed civilian is present the average dead body count from mass shootings goes from ~15 to ~2. I think that it is an absolute ignorance on the part of those LEOs, who oppose permits being given to law abiding citizens, who have gone through an FBI background checks and other qualifying aspects. The more good law abiding guys will be armed the fewer people (including children) will die. It is as simple as that, and it is not an opinion — it is a proven fact. One would have to be either ignorant (uninformed) or evil to oppose this. Logically, only these two options exist, unless tainted by emotion - which is no way to legislate.

And that's that.

Cops are people just like in any other profession.

A little devil's advocacy: Some LEO's may consider CHLers so untrained as to be a public danger.

Or, a few CHLers may think of themselves as surrogate law enforcement and swagger about with their CHL status as proof of their "greater than the average citizen's" authority. I could see some LEO's having a concern about this...

Or, some LEO's may think CHLers will give in to anger when provoked and go to guns.

Fortunately, these fears have proven to be almost groundless - but not completely, i.e. some people do actually buy CHL badges...

JALLEN wrote:In Texas, especially in the more rural areas, CHL holders are more likely viewed as aids to, allies of, law enforcement, contrasted to the urban areas where it is somewhat less likely.

In California, of course, the attitude was more "them against us" anyone with a weapon was viewed as an opponent if not an enemy.

The Chief of Police in most cities in San Diego were enthusiastically opposed to CCW permits and the Sheriff who had the authority to issue them, would rather not, but realized he had to at least issue some or spend time in court, which he is.

There is an interesting sociological study in this.

I have to disagree with that statement. I worked 2 decades in CA and the beat level LEO is not anti gun, expect when it comes to criminals with guns (gangsters, parolees, drug dealers, ect)...I even remember back when I was a police explorer in the early 80's and we stopped a normal guy with a loaded gun> I got my first lesson on educating the person how to legally carry vs arresting him (Kern County).

A few years ago, my wife was stopped by a female LEO for a tail light problem.

Though she was not carrying, my wife showed her CHL and DL.

The officer asked her why she wasn't carrying. Then gently chastised her for not carrying as there are so many bad guys in the world.