TexasCHLforum.com

Harley Rider,
As a biker (99%er) myself it depends on the club! Certain outlaw clubs and I have a history. Something about putting their members in jail many years ago that didnt go over real well.

In my last response in this thread. The issue prior to CHL was when could you carry? Traveling was an exception. Like in the traveling issue that arose in the first round of MPA, the same loose interpretations on the MPA exiisted prior to any CHL laws. No one defined traveling. So the general consensous among judges was 3 county lines. It was not written in any law, just a standard many courts back in the day went by.
If we remember when the MPA was first passed our legislators again failed to define traveling, and there were few rogue DA's that once again fell back on the 3 county standard, though it was never defined.

I really believe we need to put a bunch of non-lawyer types in Austin and D.C. If I was a law maker the law would look something like this.

If you aint an ex-con, dont beat the ol lady or the munchkins, you can carry your weapon any where you darn well please except in a bar.
Note: Native Texans are expected to carry, you cant call yourself a Native Texan and not have gun nearby,, just aint right.

Deadly Force- If they need killin, kill em.

Liberty wrote:

dac1842 wrote:The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons. Their intent on carryng them on a daily basis is silent. Though back in their day that was common place due primarily to lack of enforcement. Over the years some courts have held that the right to carry is contained within the Second Amendment and hence you have states that have open carry per their respective legistaures. The open carry has not won much legislative support in Texas. Right wrong or indifferent in Texas no one questions the right to own a weapon. The state grants certain individuals who meet the criteria the privilege to carry a weapon concealed. Some on here think that is a right not privilege. Until the State grants it as a right, it is a privilege, just like driving.

The word bear is not about ownership its actually about carry. see: http://define.com/bear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The courts are wrong they have rewritten the law to be what they want it to be rather than as as it was written. The contitution is clear.. The reasoning and judgements are whats rather muddy.

dac1842 wrote: To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge. The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them. Like any other profession 98 percent of them are hard working, tax paying Americans like you and I.

At a certain point when an agency keeps resisting us. they change from being our allies to being our enemys. ITs Kind of a French thing.


The problem is the membership keeps putting the same people in. Where are the voices in the department speaking against them.

dac1842 wrote:
To say that you would not stop to assist an officer who was in trouble is troubling. You have the right to say it, but if that is your feelings, then why should any citizen stop to help you if you are in trouble?

Lots of things go through our mind when we see certain situations. What is the risk? how badly does that officer need our help, Do I know that oficer? Is he likely a good guy or bad guy. Is he ATF? DEA? or a department I respect?
...

dac1842 wrote: There are many on this board that by the comments they have posted on this thread and others that seem to think that since they have a CHL they should be exempt from tickets, treated with more respect and are equal in power to the police. The only thing you are exempt from is being arrested for UCW as long as you have it properly concealed, you will get the respect you show, and we as CHL holders are no where close to being the equal to a police officer.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

Are we not already in trouble when the Departments and their Representatives march up to Austin every 2 years and fight the honest good citizen on their rights to protect themselves. If the Agencies would stop campaigning for things like ticketing back seat drivers and working against CHLers they would improve relationships tremendously... How about if they just keep their chiefs and union Reps at home during the legislative session. How about a union representative speak about CHLers with a modicum of respect? How about a chief stating publicly he won't charge cancer patients with small amounts of drugs. How about Union speaking out against ticketing folks in the back seats? Are the departments about oppression or freedom..
I believe we as CHL holders as taxpayers are the superiors of the LEOs aren't we?[/quote]

Liberty,
I agree we should be able to carry unrestricted except for carrying in bars. Other than that I support unrestricted carry.
We should not judge the entire HPD over the comments of a misguided union rep. I work in a very unionized industry, just because he represents them in a union capacity does not mean he represents the views of the guys on the street.
The officer out in the patrol car has an obligation to enforce the law. He may not agree with the way it is written but his job is to enforce it. IF the law says it is illegal to not wear a seatbelt in the back seat,then yes he is obligated to enforce it. That does not mean he is obligated to write a ticket, enforcement can happen in many ways. The method of enforcement is the officers discretion.

Does selective enforcement exist? We both know it does, always has and always will. I dont see us as in trouble. We have come a long long ways since the days of possessing a firearm outside your home was illegal. Instead of confronting the Union or our elected officials, why not engage them in constructive dialog. Granted it does not always work. We are seeing right now in D.C that the views of the people are being totally ignored for the views of a powerful few. Confrontation never works.

The next step is between now and the next legislature is for us as a law abiding community (CHL HOLDERS) to unite and and start to let the state reps and senators that voted down our bills, or quashed them in committee playing policitcal games, that our intent is to oust them from office. If all the CHL holders that live in the districts of the reps and senators who torpedoed the bills we backed were to call their reps and senators now, the tone would change in some. During the legisltature is the wrong time to start that process when opposing special interests are bombarding them too. Hit them now that they are home and in their districts. Dont be quiet about, be loud, respectful and show up in numbers at their offices and let them know as a community our intent is make them unemployed.

Android,
No offense taken sir. Very good and legitimate questions.
Prior to CHL laws being in place it was illegal in Texas to possess a firearm outside of your home unless you were
1- Traveling- At the time this meant crossing at least 3 county lines and being gone overnight.
2- Had in your possession items of high value. This was seen by the courts as over $1000 in cash or 10,000 in other items such as diamonds.
3- Were a peace officer
4- Were a commissioned security guard traveling directly to or from your place of employment.

There may have been other exceptions but I cannot recall them at this time.

Most officers depending on the time of day, place, who was carrying and attitude of the suspect would not take exception. The times I charged someone with that they were usually DWI, resisted arrest on another charge or displaying the weapon in a threatening manner. I cant recall any time I ever charged someone with UCW as a stand alone charge.

For instance I stopped nurses or others who worked shift work, were coming home at 2 and 3 am and if they were cooperative the fact they had a weapon was not ever a big deal.

The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons. Their intent on carryng them on a daily basis is silent. Though back in their day that was common place due primarily to lack of enforcement. Over the years some courts have held that the right to carry is contained within the Second Amendment and hence you have states that have open carry per their respective legistaures. The open carry has not won much legislative support in Texas. Right wrong or indifferent in Texas no one questions the right to own a weapon. The state grants certain individuals who meet the criteria the privilege to carry a weapon concealed. Some on here think that is a right not privilege. Until the State grants it as a right, it is a privilege, just like driving.

To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge. The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them. Like any other profession 98 percent of them are hard working, tax paying Americans like you and I.

I dont know the circumstances of why one's weapon was seized in 1987 in New Jersey. I dont have a clue as to what the law was in New Jersey at the time on carry a weapon. I know in Texas in 1987 if you carried a weapon in your car or on your person, unless you met one of the exceptions listed in the penal code, you went to jail and your weapon was confiscated and you never saw it again if convicted of Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon. I know this, because back then I put a few folks in jail for it. Usually there was another charge that accompanied it since you would not normally see the weapon until the violator was detained for something else.

Today in Texas that has all changed. It is legal, even without a CHL to carry in your car. If for some reason the police confiscate your weapon, it is run through firearms testing at the Medical Examiners Office, then if your weapon has not been used in the commission of a crime, or is evidence they return it. I know this because my oldest son just went throug this as a result of being the victiim of a cowardly assault at a Sports Bar on FM 1960 in Atascocita.

I have numerous friends who are still active in law enforcement. The vast majority of them are very supportive of the CHL laws. Do not judge the community as a whole based on the comments of a Union President. Talk to the officer on the street. Most of them are very approchable and are happy to engage citizens in a manner that is not confrontational for either one.

To say that you would not stop to assist an officer who was in trouble is troubling. You have the right to say it, but if that is your feelings, then why should any citizen stop to help you if you are in trouble?

There are many on this board that by the comments they have posted on this thread and others that seem to think that since they have a CHL they should be exempt from tickets, treated with more respect and are equal in power to the police. The only thing you are exempt from is being arrested for UCW as long as you have it properly concealed, you will get the respect you show, and we as CHL holders are no where close to being the equal to a police officer.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

It causes me some concern on the mental state of some of our fellow CHL holders when I see comments regarding the police and folks saying that they will not stop and and assist if they see one in trouble, or referring to them as the the gestapo, referring to them as the enemy.

1- If anyone were to go past anybody, police or not that is in trouble and does not stop to assist, may you burn in Hades. The backbone of our country is the willingness to help those in need. To make a statement that if I see a cop in trouble I am just going to mind my own business and keep going, or refer to them as the enemy just completely blows me away.
The very ones that make that kind of statement are the ones that will scream the loudest if an officer just minds his own business and drives by them in a moment of distress.
To see those comments on a board like this is very disconcerting. Take a moment an think about what our lives would be like if it was not for our Law Enforcment community. Anyone that believes that the Second Amendment will protect us and keep our community from becoming lawless without the men and women on the streets in patrol cars is completely and uttlerly insane.

2-I worked the streets for 15 years. The officer that stops a person has the right to know if that person is armed. That right is not contained in any written document, it is the safety and security of the officer that supercedes anything else. Granted the crook on the street is not going to notify, but the person that does notify the officer that he or she is legally carrying a weapon helps his/her own cause. That officer now realizes he is probably dealing with someone who is law abiding, is not a threat to him or his safety and actually cares enough to mention it.

3- The State of Texas gives us the privilege that I know most here feel is a right, to carry a concealed weapon. I am not here to argue the merits or constitutionality of our right to carry. We MUST comply with laws regardless of if we agree with them or not. Along with any right we have comes responsibility. The right to carry comes with it the responsibility to be conciencious of how we exercise that right. IMHO, it is an obligation for us to notify the officer we have a weapon. Even though the crooks wont do it, responsibility is what separates us from the crooks.
The right to free speech does not carry with it the right to offend. We can say what we want, but being respectful, not politcially correct, respectful, is the responsibility of that right.

Even being an ex cop I have had my fair share of less than ideal dealings with the police. I do not judge all police by the actions of a very very few. I hope that you that have ill will towards the police will not judge all by the actions of a few.

Even though I do not agree with the statements of i will not stop and assist an officer in trouble, or referring to them as the gestapo or the enemy. I will defend to the death, your right to say it.

Liberty wrote:

dac1842 wrote:True Police of any type are not required to notify as we are. But the fact is, most do. I was an LEO for many years, everytime I stopped another LEO he would identify himself immediately as an LEO and let me know if he was packing. Most understand the importance of the notification and the effect that the notificaiton has on the officers state of mind. I know someone will take off on that, and that is your right. Until you have walked in those shoes, don't critisize those that have.

Police will seldom get a ticket if the identify themselves as a "brother officer"

Liberty, that is not the point, true as it is. The point is that most officer, will announce if they are carrying a weapon.

True Police of any type are not required to notify as we are. But the fact is, most do. I was an LEO for many years, everytime I stopped another LEO he would identify himself immediately as an LEO and let me know if he was packing. Most understand the importance of the notification and the effect that the notificaiton has on the officers state of mind. I know someone will take off on that, and that is your right. Until you have walked in those shoes, don't critisize those that have.