TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

one eyed fatman wrote:I use the term freaky loosely. Hopefully no one was offended.

Not al all. I thought it was pretty funny.

The situation with HPD now will apparently be different than prior to the passage of HB823. It appears that HPD officers will now routinely ask drivers if they have any weapons in the car, so this scenario is more likely to occur.

Chas.

Thats interesting...And I know this is off-topic, but what else is new...

If they're changing their policy to "inquire" about any weapons in the vehicle?

Then why can't they recind HPD policy 500-5 (I think thats the internal policy or order), as to allow HPD officers to inquire and have shown proof to the residency of a person they pull over these days???

You know since that seems to be a big issue these days with the American people...

Just something to think about...

one eyed fatman wrote:I use the term freaky loosely. Hopefully no one was offended.

Nahhh, I knew what you meant...

I don't know about everyone else...You may have to be careful...

one eyed fatman wrote:This threads is kind of strange to listen to. In all my 53 years and all the times I have been pulled over by the law not one single time has any officer ever asked me if I had a gun in the car. Are people getting freaky here or have I just been real lucky?

I've seen discussions like this as well...I don't assume anyone's participation to be "freaky" or "paranoid" to any extent...

Odds are that occasionally someone will come into the discussion (like this) and relate an incident that should concern us to a certain point, but with that knowledge, and discussion, we should be able to apply that information to prevent a similar situation that "could" happen to us, and reduce the friction and stress of that encounter...

Like you, I have never personally had an "official" encounter go sour grapes on me...

Stuff happens, and I feel its better to get it out in the open in places like this, than to not...

You've had a lot of good stuff to relate to us...I know you have more...I've always enjoyed your input...

Paladin wrote:As a side note, it is interesting that before the CHL law kicked, HPD had around 1,800 to 3,200 'Unlawful weapon carrying, possession' cases per year. That's almost twice as many.

I love numbers...

In this case you could presume that the number of UCW infractions were committed by people who should not be in posession of a firearm in the first place...

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the language of the law passed that allows you to carry a firearm in your car "if traveling" blah blah blah...That those persons who would not otherwise be restricted from doing so (i.e.: convicted felons, etc. etc.) could do so...

So a law-abiding citizen could have a firearm in the car with them...While traveling...

So the question is...What is Chucks big rub with this law??? Is it that "traveling" for some reason has not been defined well enough??? Because the rest of the law seems pretty clear to me, regardless of how I feel about it in general...

If a law that was designed to define and reduce the ambiguity in our basic right to keep and bear arms is clear to most of us "non-enforcers" of the law, but confuses, and creates problems with the "law enforcement" side of the issue (that being the desk jockeys, not the street folks)...What gives???

All I know is that I am glad I will continue to keep up my license in this state...To which this law will not effect me that much...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Tripp called Rosenthal's opposition a case of "sour grapes ... and a threat to the general public."

I would definitely take Alice's comment to the bank...

Charles...Do you think your compadre Mr. "D.H.", might consider taking a paycut and run against Chuck next time??? I would support that campaign without a doubt...

Just a crazy armchair lawyer idea...

I seriously doubt it; he's too young for that office. I am going to have lunch with him sometime and I plan to broach the subject.

Chas.

"Age and treachery will win over youth and skill everytime..."

"Stevie-D's Grandfather"

And yes, my grandfather probably got that from someone else...But I do give the statement some weight in certain situations...

And I'm sure from what I have heard from him so far (Mr. D.H.) that he's not just a "one issue" attorney...

I would though like to know a little more about his "politics" though...I think he'd make a fine HCDA...

But thats just me...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Tripp called Rosenthal's opposition a case of "sour grapes ... and a threat to the general public."

I would definitely take Alice's comment to the bank...

Charles...Do you think your compadre Mr. "D.H.", might consider taking a paycut and run against Chuck next time??? I would support that campaign without a doubt...

Just a crazy armchair lawyer idea...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Paladin, I know you baited me into this - and it worked! I bet Steve put you up to it.

I cannot confirm or deny...I am such a rebel...

I remember having this conversation with Chucky a while back...And felt like afterwards I needed to wash up or something...I was not impressed after I figured out what he was trying to tell me at that time...

And even though I really wanteed to understand why he took this position, the outrage from our community has apparently fallen on deaf ears...If he had come out and explained why he was going to be pill about this issue, maybe things might be different...

Or not...

So if he gets the boot in the '08 elections, I'm ok with it...But who would want to run against him???