Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?
I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
I can deal with nibbling away at it.Purplehood wrote:I agree with the take what you get for now theory...
Exactly...and is how it should have been.barres wrote:
HB410, before it got amended into the other bill, included a provision that blocked the person's CHL status from coming up on the DL check.
Not a problem-nitpick away- Power it is,Right it is not. But I did get my point across as you understood what I was saying.seamusTX wrote:Excuse me for nitpicking, but this is not a right, it is a power.jlangton wrote:If the officer knows, then they can use their "right" to disarm me just because they choose to do so.
Rights protect people from government power. Powers give government agents the legal ability to do something.
- Jim
Myself,as well as a large number of folks I know are of the opinion that it's none of the officer's business whether I have a firearm or not. By declaring that I have a firearm on my person or about my person does nothing more than make that officer have concerns about my firearm,when the fact is I have no intentions of harming the officer. If the officer doesn't know, they write the citation, and we both go on down the road with no hassles. If the officer knows, then they can use their "right" to disarm me just because they choose to do so. This is wrong, and is the main reason this bill is being pushed. The general public does not have to disclose this information, so it is our opinion that a group of known trustworthy people should not have different standards and have the potential problem of being disarmed in public like a common thug. There are no policies or checks on an officer's "right" to disarm me, and I have a problem with that. Passage of this bill will eliminate a large percentage of the disarmings that occur because the officer won't know, so they'll just do their job without harassing citizens that have no intentions of harming them.dac1842 wrote:Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.
I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.
Elitist law-enforcement influence. In discussions with guys at work there is one ex-sheriff's deputy here, and he's absolutely against any law that eliminates the duty to inform. His opinion is that law-enforcement officers MUST know every time there is a firearm in any vehicle, any time that there is a stop-no matter what. His opinion is that the public isn't trustworthy, and that he's at risk no matter who it is-if there's a firearm anywhere in the vehicle. We definitely do not agree on this at all. He's also of the opinion that anybody that doesn't come out and announce that there is a firearm is trying to hide something. That's the influence that we're all fighting against in passage of bills like these, and the influence on lawmakers from the elitist law-enforcement types is HUGE.stash wrote:I really for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone up there would be against this, especially with the MPA and all.
