TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:
My point is a simple one: Have a legitimate reason to disarm a CHL before doing so.

flintknapper wrote:
It took me about 3 minutes (right here) to find the above. If memory serves, I can find you at least 6 more from this site alone.

We do not have the luxury of being able to hear the officers side of the story, but we can certainly ask our members if they feel they were displaying any of the conditions you cited above.

And if they did not, then I would ask you to reconcile this.

wow, outstanding post / argument there Flint.

I think what the whole topic boils down to his this. A CHL does not natively represent a threat to an officer. Disarming someone simply because they are armed and citing a "safety issue" is unfair, unconstitutional and paranoia. If there are TRULY concerns such as intoxication, aggressive behavior, history of violence, etc. then I don't think anyone here would have an issue with a LEO disarming a civilian for the duration of a "scene". It's when the "safety flag" is thrown and used as a general excuse to disarm folks who are otherwise behaving that is the real issue here.

I mentioned this to Flint in a PM, and i'll say it again here, I'm not sure where I read this but I recall that whole departments and certainly individual officers have policies to disarm chl folks "for safety reasons" as a matter of procedure. THAT is what I personally have issue with and I suspect what others who have voiced concern over this have issue with as well.

flintknapper wrote: Of course, we all hope this is true.

Just to make things clear, what are a few things you would consider to be "good reasons" as concerns an officer disarming a CHL, please be specific.

Thanks,

Flint.

pointing a gun at someone without justifiable cause to do so.
threats of violence toward an officer or others on the scene.
history of assault / aggression toward LEO.
obvious appearance that they are under the influence of some substance or in an altered state of mind by means of suspected chemical abuse or general mental instability.
they are the primary suspect in a felony or act of violence.

dac1842 wrote:AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT. I HAVE A CHL, I WOULD NOT BE OFFENDED IF AN OFFICER DISARMED ME, I WOULD BE DISAPPOINTED IF HE DIDN'T. HIS SAFETY COMES FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM THE LEAST LIKELY PERSON ON THE PLANET TO BE A THREAT TO AN LEO, BUT HE DOES NOT KNOW THAT. HE HAS TO TAKE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT HE GOES HOME TO HIS FAMILY EACH NIGHT. REMEMBER THIS, BUNDY WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE A THE NATIONS WORST SERIAL KILLER FOR YEARS.

biggest load of hogwash i've ever heard.

What about the right of the citizen to protect himself from others (and the officer)? Officers can be dirty just like everyone else. The only cop I want touching my gun is the one I let shoot it at the range.

Leo does NOT get a higher safety priority than me. Leo chose that job knowing its risks. I understand he doesn't know that i'll be the first one at his defense, but that's not my problem and still doesn't give him any more right to safety and defense than me.

Leo's right to disarm a civilian who is not an immediate and serious threat is a violation of the 2nd amendment imo. These cops that run around disarming folks as a matter of policy as soon as they find out they're armed should have their TECLOSE certification revoked.