TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:They have trained their dispatchers to ask questions and to inform the callers that OC is legal in the case of MWAG calls. The chief and several of his officers said that they are in contact with CHLs nearly every day (they have a VERY aggressive traffic enforcement program) and have never had problems with them. They don't expect anything about that to change starting in January.

That's good news to hear for you then. That's the way that it was when I lived in another state with constitutional OC in that all dispatchers were trained to that and they also did a very good job of sniffing out the bull if someone tried to make a claim that MWAG was then waving it around or such. That is what I'd hoped to hear from HPD, that they had trained everyone to this same approach, but I didn't hear that and instead I heard that they will investigate any call.

Glockster wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I understand there will be stops once 1/1/2016 gets here and I plan to be civil and respectful as I always have but the officer must extend the same courtesy. I will have a problem if they detain me longer than a few minutes in order to check for warrants or some other nonsense. I will have a problem if they start asking questions like where are you going? Where are you coming from? These type of questions have no bearing on my ability to legally OC a firearm once I present my LTC. I view these stops no differently then pulling someone over just to see if they have a drivers license.

It shouldn't even be necessary to discuss this issue at all. I have a license to open or conceal carry and no LEO should be allowed to stop and ask you for your LTC based solely on a person open carrying a firearm.

I also find it insane that we still have to present a drivers license or state issued ID along with our LTC. What purpose does this serve if I am not driving a vehicle? I could understand this if our picture wasn't on the LTC, but really? I don't have to present additional ID when presenting my drivers license so why should the requirement be different for showing LTC when requested?

I personally agree with what you're saying, and especially about them turning a quick verification of CHL into something else. But I can't equate this to being pulled over to see if I have a DL, because as far as I know they aren't allowed to simply randomly pull me over for that either. And having a DL is not covered under 2A. I think that is hugely different, and in other states where it has been found that RAS/PC isn't met by the simple presence of an openly carried handgun in a holster.

ADDED: After re-reading I think I may have first time through not fully caught your DL point.

suthdj wrote:We need a website so we can log all the oc stops. Like the 3006 site. Then if there is an issue we have documented ammo. Do police log all their interactions with the public?

THAT is a most excellent idea! Otherwise, we only have places like this to bring them up.

G.A. Heath wrote:When discussing he Dutton amendment the legislature felt it was not needed due to existing case law, among other things. If the legislature receives enough complaints that LE is harassing license holders who are open carrying a handgun lawfully the issue is likely to be revisited.

Keep in mind Grisham's little stunt in Oklahoma that gave anti-gunners a meme poster didn't help the Dutton Amendment, nor did the statement by militant OC groups and Stickland about Inadvertently/accidentally getting open carry, nor did all the bad press generated by OC groups who's leadership is ineligible for a Texas CHL. In the end OCT/CATI/OCTC/Ect. killed the Dutton amendment. Anyone who complains about LE stopping a license holder to demand their license needs to go thank OCT/CATI/OCTC/ect. and their leadership for the excellent job they did in killing the Dutton Amendment, and any bill it would have been attached to.

And I hear what you're saying, and frankly agree with your point about why the amendment got everyone's undergarments into a bunch. But their actions doesn't in any way diminish my own rights and has no reflection upon my law abiding status. But we're right back to my above question -- at what point are there "enough complaints" to revisit it? Is that 100 with minor issues vs. one where someone has a great YouTube video to go with their harassment claim?

To be clear, I will not be rude. I will not refuse to provide the ID. I DO however consider it to be harassment. Any stop. Period. I am a law abiding citizen, and I look like one right down to still having the same military haircut many years later. You would never pick me out of any crowd as someone that "might be trouble." I have undergone that in depth process to be vetted to receive my CHL. And let's be honest about it -- how many here actually believe that there are bad guys who will come January 1st start open carrying their illegal weapon because they believe they might just "fit in" with the rest of us? Bad guys don't OC. We know that, and I'm pretty sure that LEO knows that.

Perhaps though I'm only discussing this for the sake of supporting someone else's rights, as I personally may not even OC in TX. I just want to know that if my shirt rides up over my WB holster, that I'm not going to worry about that exposure. So carry on.

Right2Carry wrote:I understand there will be stops once 1/1/2016 gets here and I plan to be civil and respectful as I always have but the officer must extend the same courtesy. I will have a problem if they detain me longer than a few minutes in order to check for warrants or some other nonsense. I will have a problem if they start asking questions like where are you going? Where are you coming from? These type of questions have no bearing on my ability to legally OC a firearm once I present my LTC. I view these stops no differently then pulling someone over just to see if they have a drivers license.

It shouldn't even be necessary to discuss this issue at all. I have a license to open or conceal carry and no LEO should be allowed to stop and ask you for your LTC based solely on a person open carrying a firearm.

I also find it insane that we still have to present a drivers license or state issued ID along with our LTC. What purpose does this serve if I am not driving a vehicle? I could understand this if our picture wasn't on the LTC, but really? I don't have to present additional ID when presenting my drivers license so why should the requirement be different for showing LTC when requested?

I personally agree with what you're saying, and especially about them turning a quick verification of CHL into something else. But I can't equate this to being pulled over to see if I have a DL, because as far as I know they aren't allowed to simply randomly pull me over for that either. And having a DL is not covered under 2A. I think that is hugely different, and in other states where it has been found that RAS/PC isn't met by the simple presence of an openly carried handgun in a holster.

What I personally don't like about some of this discussion is the whole notion of dismissing being bothered about being stopped for ID because it won't happen often or too frequently or that it won't inconvenience me too much or for too long. I personally feel that this is a very steep and slippery slope. Once it begins, then it is established and is easier to continue with. And please don't try to tell me that there aren't officers somewhere who will take the stance that they can do it whenever they want and however they want. I respect LEOs, but I also have this thing called the Internet and so can readily find evidence that not all LEOs are apparently cut from the same constitutional cloth.

At what point would it be too whatever? The first time? The 10th time? Everyone has a different viewpoint of what may be too whatever. Absent official guidelines we are left debating it here, where it will have no meaning whatsoever on the street.

What I know is that when I listened to the hours and hours of debate over this issue I was left with the absolute understanding that without RAS/PC that I could no more be stopped in Texas than I could expect to see random DWI roadblocks. And that was given as one of the reasons that the specific language prohibiting stop/ID was removed from the final language. I did NOT hear that it was removed because we should not make a fuss, should not be impolite, or that it really wouldn't be too much of a bother. What I heard was that it was already NOT allowed in Texas.

Now, I'm hearing a whole different story. And that, my friends, bothers me the most. Not -- to be honest -- that I might get stopped. But that I heard what I heard and now gravity is apparently different in Texas.

Abraham wrote:Perhaps, an ink stamp of approval with the date and time stamped on the back of your hand could be put into use once checked out by an LEO.

Then, if you encounter another LEO wanting to interrogate you for OCing, you could simply wave your hand and not have to go through the bother.

I'm only partially kidding...

What's to prevent multiple interrogations for OCing during the course of one day?

And to carry that further, let's say that you start your day out heading somewhere down in Houston, and get stopped and checked there. And then head up the road a bit, and are outside of Houston but still inside Harris County and get stopped there. And then a little bit further up the road and are now outside of Harris and just inside of Montgomery County and get stopped there. You could get stopped many times, in many jurisdictions on a Saturday morning of going to a few stores.

Abraham wrote:At this point, I wonder how many that 'were going to OC' have been chilled into not OCing by virtue of expecting to be continuously stopped by LE and having to prove their CHL/LTC status?

Picture this: Throughout the course of the day while shopping in Houston, eating in restaurants, and so on, all the while OCing, you're stopped repeatedly by LE to prove your legality to OC.

Who would tolerate that indignity when they OC?

If I knew that the town down the road would stop every driver in a particular car to see if they had a license, I probably wouldn't be driving in that town or at least not in that particular car. And to carry this more to a constitutional angle, if I knew that the police were going to compel anyone at a demonstration to give up their ID, even though they were lawfully assembling, I'd have to make a choice of going or not.

joelamosobadiah wrote:I wasn't able to watch, but based on comments here it appears it's about what was to be expected... Overall did anybody get the feeling Houston PD would go out of their way to make it difficult to practically OC by constantly checking IDs or will it largely be a non-issue?

I watched about half of it so perhaps my impression isn't completely accurate, but from what I saw it seems clear to me that they are going to stop and ID anyone they see, and they will investigate anything called in (meaning sending an officer to then stop and ID, rather than dispatch asking whether the MWAG was doing anything other than carrying a gun).

To me, possibly the most concerning part that I saw was when the chief indicated that he's heard nothing about those groups who have indicated that they will call 911 (and worse) whenever they see a MWAG - and the chief not only hadn't heard of anyone having said or posted those things, said that any call like that would be investigated. He did admit that they get lots of false 911 calls. Again, maybe I missed something else on this point, but I"ve lived elsewhere and where OC was no thing at all. And there if a MWAG call came in the first thing that dispatch did was to state that carrying OC was legal and to ask if that's all that was going on. I would have like to have heard this here, but didn't.

The second most troubling thing that I heard was when one of the "speakers" was making a statement about law abiding citizens and the low crime rate among CHL holders and how OC was legal in 44 states, the chief made a point of making a point by saying that Houston will on January 1st become the largest city in the US to have OC. Suggesting that nothing else applies, it will all be different here. So it doesn't sound like they've done a lot to investigate those lessons learned that are available across the country on how to make this go smoothly and safely for everyone. My point is that, coupled with my above about the chief not even knowing if there was a retention requirement in the law suggests to me that HPD hasn't done its homework, at least not wholly or adequately, to prepare for this.

Perhaps one major bit of "good" news was related to holsters where it was asked and answered several times -- that HPD at least has no interest in arresting someone for wearing a drop holster, or lots of other things. It was said that this wasn't important, and it was directly and indirectly stated that if it hangs from a belt or belt area, they have other important things to worry about. That I believe is very good news for Houston area folks.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know why they are letting that guy give a commercial pitch.

Chas.

The TX Shield Law guy?

Not Edwin, but the other guy who had a hard time talking.

Chas.

Oh, yeah know who you mean now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know why they are letting that guy give a commercial pitch.

Chas.

The TX Shield Law guy?

Chief just said that he didn't know if there was any retention requirement.

I haven't been able to catch all of this but what the heck are they discussing about creating temporary "educational zones" at the zoo or elsewhere?

suthdj wrote:They are saying a LEO can walk up and ask to see your ID and you have to comply.

Of course they are saying that. Exactly why they fought so hard to keep that out of the law. Having lost the battle they intend to instead harass as much as possible.

DevilDawg wrote:And Sylvester just got the Mayor gig. Going to be an interesting few months for anyone who OC in Houston.

Yupper, given his views on local governments having the ability to ban concealed weapons on public property it's pretty clear that if you are carrying in Houston, it's going to feel even more like the new Austin.