TexasCHLforum.com

Bingo!

Charles wins the cookie...

KBCraig wrote:Back to the original topic...

The news article cited is about "on duty always", not "armed always". here's the distinction: if I'm on duty, I'm obliged to respond to a crime in my presence. If I'm "armed, but off duty", I have no such (legal) obligation; I'm merely a citizen.

Kevin

Thats an interesting situation to be in...

I thought that being a "commissioned" law enforcement officer in a particular "state" you were charged with enforcement of the law 24/7 regardless if you were on shift or not...

You're not going to stand by and be restricted as I am, non-LEO, if you see a felony in progress...You are trained in the enforcement of the law, as I am not...So your "intervention" is more along the lines that even though you have not been dispatched to a situation, you are charged/contracted/commisioned in the enforcement of the law, and to serve and protect the community and state...

If I stretched it a bit in the paragraph above, that of course, is just my take on it...I'm far from needing to dictate anything remotely resembling policy...

Law Enforcement is a calling...Just like serving in the armed forces, in a fire department, being a doctor, teacher etc etc...

Once someone turns it into a "job" then it becomes something you put on and off like a coat...You stop caring, and it doesn't remain a passion in your life...

If the intent of limiting L.E.O.'s (by management) from being a deterent or
at the very least an unknown factor in a criminals mind that if they choose to break the law, there may or may not be someone there to be a risk to them...

Then its all over...

Kalrog wrote:I don't have a problem with the LEO price - but I do have a problem with the regular civilian price. I mean, what the heck does the state do that requires that much money per applicant? Sounds like the process might be a tad inefficient... either that or it is a profit center and I don't like either option.

I balance out the price over the time of the license...Its $70 to me now...And will be for a long time...

I'd even pay a $140 for 10 years, just to keep from worrying about it for that long...

For what its worth, and what they actually do in that office...I'm not sure they are actually generating "that" much revenue for the state...

Was the sign-off by the boss to be able to get the CHL, or to mainly get the L.E.O. discount???

I would hate to think you guys need permission from someone to get the license...

I'm ok with the discount thing, albiet I wish I could get a discount... Self-Defense is expensive these days...

Just a thought about how it should go if this becomes a trend...

Far from it...If anything I am "critical" of certain statements and policies that certain Law Enforcement agencies of other (non-civilian-carry friendly) states and municipalities present to the public through a anti-gun media...

With that disclaimer re-affirmed...Most L.E. guys and gals here know my feelings already in this regard...

I post this for general consumption...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_ ... d_off_duty

Now there are a few things in this article that bother me, but the one I will clip is this one...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, formerly worked as a Los Angeles police officer and said he usually carried a gun off duty. If police officers are properly trained, officers should have the option of carrying a gun for their own protection, he said.

"I don't want to be driving through the ghetto without a gun," he said. "What if some knucklehead I arrested spots me?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now don't get me wrong I think Law Enforcement should be able to carry on or off duty, and to do so on their active credentials, or a CCW permit if required or encouraged to get one...

What gets me about that statement is a basic core belief I have in that we ALL have that problem that this "David Klinger" has...

We do not know when or where it may or may not happen, when we must choose to defend ourselves with the use of a firearm...Its kinda one of those simple "mindsets" that we should develop with training and talking shop with friends at the range or forums such as this...

Why this apparently needs to be a struggle with the upper eschelon of Law Enforcement to work aggressively to remove such an "option" for its off-duty personnel bothers me to a great degree...

But the solution to this "agenda" certainly would be for the Law Enforcement community (should be) to get their civilian CCW licences in their prospective states if they are available...

And if they are not, then they should aggressively lobby for the passage of this law to take up the slack for EVERYONE who chooses and desires to do so...

So when at first I saw this story as a negative to our friends who serve and protect...I see this as an opportunity to expand a civilian carry agenda in areas where we might not gain much ground due to situations like this...

Just my opinion...