TexasCHLforum.com

handog wrote:I will have to respectfully disagree with the exposure while exiting the vehicle. If my shirt rides up a little while driving it is still concealed by definition because it is sandwiched between me and the back seat. Again, the gun would have been concealed as I exited if I was not forced to hold my hands in the air at gunpoint. It's like forcing someone to reach for the top shelf at wall mart at gunpoint then saying gotchya. It's not right

The exposure while exiting vehicle point was that even when in a vehicle, the gun must be completely concealed. If it was completely concealed squished between your body and the seat back even with the cover garment riding up, then you're probably fine. But does it unconceal for a split second as you exit and lower your shirt? Or while you are driving and think it's concealed could a person see the back of the slide or something? My MO on this is if a police officer looking inside my vehicle during a traffic stop can see any hint of a weapon, then it's NOT concealed properly.

Realize I'm splitting hairs here and I have to readjust my shirt from time to time too. For me, it's just a matter of degree and frequency. I try to wear longer/bigger shirts when belt carrying or tuck the shirt to be sure the weapon is concealed. If my shirt is too small/short, I pocket carry.

Again, not saying any of this warranted your arrest.

handog wrote:

gun3.jpg

gun2.jpg

gun1.jpg

This is what I was wearing the day of the arrest. reckless?

Hard to tell if there is any obvious printing in first photo of you sitting in chair. Not that printing is illegal, but we are Monday Morning Quarterbacking your method of carry, and my personal belief is you should try to limit printing as much as possible.

On the third photo which shows the actual gun and holster, I think you would benefit greatly from a forward canted IWB holster with that weapon. That is a large full-size hand grip (at least appears so from the photo - certainly larger than a Kahr or Glock 27 or similar) and it does protrude a good bit. A forward canted holster will angle the rear of the grip up and toward the front of your body, better concealing it pressed against your midsection.

Plenty of good canted holsters out there. But of course, something like a Crossbreed or M-TAC allows a lot of user adjustable forward cant settings - as opposed to a fixed 15% or "FBI" cant on more traditional holsters.

The Glock 36, while is is a "compact" single stack weapon, is very similar in overall size to my Glock 23. When I first bought that gun 12 or so years ago, I tried a straight-cant holster very similar to what you're wearing (same as what I'd used with my old Colt Mustang .380) and found the straight cant very uncomfortable (even in my younger, skinnier days). So my first 6 or so years I carried the G23 in a Galco Summer Comfort/Royal Guard with a "FBI" cant. Never had a problem with printing.

Now carry that gun - and a G27 and a Walther PPS - in Crossbreeds with the front strut set to lowest setting and rear strut set to second highest notch for an even more exagerated cant. The G27 and PPS just disappear. The G23 is also extremely difficult to detect.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

handog wrote:

gun3.jpg

gun2.jpg

gun1.jpg

This is what I was wearing the day of the arrest. reckless?

Not reckless at all. I bet many here carry just like that. Personally, I feel like that handgun is sticking up to far and just begging to be exposed. Anything that protrudes out from your body, either while sitting down, bending over... or even while reaching up is a possible snag that could expose your weapon. This is just my opinion of coarse but I feel like full sized weapons are not necessary for concealed carry. Many manufacturers make sub compact weapons of quality and it sure does decrease the risk of getting outed. My son won't even consider carrying anything that requires he change his manner of dress. Drives me nuts but it is what it is. He likes to pocket carry and this really decreases the odds of getting outed. Again... just my opinion but try dropping the weapon down further inside your pants. You need a different holster for this but it might reduce that handle sticking out.

Try not to get ticked off by folks questioning your situation. None of us know you or the facts in what happened. It is pretty rare for someone to get rousted in the manner you did and I think it is human nature to try and make some sense of it. If we can figure out what you might have done to contribute to the situation, it makes the rest of us feel like we can limit our risk of getting the same treatment.

Well written lightningrocks

handog wrote:Evidently I am coming across here as sort of dense. If you go back and read my previous post I asked for advice on a smaller gun, perhaps a different holster. I get it! Lightningrocks suggested a PM9 in a mini super tuck. Doesn't tell you I have taken some personal responsibility on what happen? I am working on another rig. I just don't want it so deeply concealed that I cannot get to it if and when I need to defend myself.

I want to thank everyone for their feedback. This has been a real learning experience for me. And to the ones who think I'm complaining and don't want to hear it; why are you here?

handog, I didn't mean in any way to suggest your are dense or demean you in any other way. I'm just a bit troubled that you can't see this situation at all from the perspective of the police. Of course, if I was in your shoes I'm sure I would be clouded by anger and resentment (again, not an indictment of you, speaking for how I might react). But I think a lot of people in both of these threads have made some very good points that are worthy of consideration - on both sides of the issue. What continues to trouble me is you don't seem to give the police any benefit of the doubt at all (not that they gave you any, but that's a different point).

I agree that once you showed your CHL following what you say was an accidental unconceal getting out of your vehicle and what we must assume was another accidental unconceal in the building, the cops likely should've let you go without the arrest. But, you need to realize that at least twice that night you apparently inadvertantly unconcealed your weapon to the point that someone was startled enough to call the police. Regardless of fault, culpability, or intent, your concealed firearm was revealed. That's a problem, regardless of the letter of the law. Sounds like you're taking steps to correct that problem, which is good. And I fully understand why you're bitter about the whole incident and I would be too, but again YOU failed to conceal. The police MUST examine any person revealing a weapon on their person (rightly or wrongly under the 2A RKBA - as it now stands, a "man with gun" demands a swift and certain police response).

Anyway, I hope you take all of this constructive criticism and even some of the more heavy-handed criticism as just more information in a learning process. I truly am sorry this happened to you and the police, IMHO, overstepped their bounds with the arrest, but NOT with the initial armed confrontation. Again I greatly appreciate you sharing all of this with us and hope you will share with us whatever is revealed in your Open Records request.

handog wrote:First of all I Didn't say it was concealed when I was ordered out of my vehicle.
Secondly I'm not here to argue. Remember the judge agreed with me. No kidding

Handog I think what most folks are trying to say is that while the judge agreed with you this time, that may not always happen and you could be in for a longer ordeal that includes a real court date etc. Thus it is best to be sure you are fully concealed and try to limit any potentional of even inadvertent or accidental unconcealing. If your shirt regularly rides up and exposes your gun while your in you're car and you usually have to pull your shirt back over your gun when you get out of your car, then you NEED to change the manner in which you carry your concealed handgun. Get larger shirts, a smaller gun, shoulder holster, pocket carry, tucked IWB holster, SmartCarry, a fanny pack - something different.

IMHO, if it happens occasionally, it's inadvertant/accidental. But if it happens often, then you should self correct to prevent it from happening again and again.

And you do realize that your gun must be concealed even in your vehicle, right? I'm sure you do, but just clarifying based on your above comment.

BTW, I'm basing some of what I'm posting on other posts I've read from you stating that you believe you were concealed in the building but when you were pulled over you could not reach down to "reconceal" your gun while in your car because you fear the cops would shoot if you reached.

gemini wrote:The reason I don't want a LEO, or anyone else pointing the muzzle of a weapon at me:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Both BG's in the above clips were on the ground, face down, had LEO's
all over them........

I'm not into bashing LEO's. However, with the authority they have, they
must be held to a higher standard of conduct. Unless I missed something, Handog
was not waving his pistola around in the air, popping off rounds, threatening
to shoot anyone or exhibiting any type of aggressive behavior. It was about printing.
There is a difference between judicious caution and over reaction. Each incident
requires the LEO to make an immediate assessment. From reading, do I think
the LEO's overreacted to Handog, Yes.

Edit: Wow. I guess everybody types faster than I do. I'm glad all concerned are good with a "summit".

Gemini, those are tragic circumstances in those videos. No justification whatsoever. Obviously if you're going to break Rule #2 (don't point gun at someone) you better be darn sure you follow Rule #3 (keep your finger off the trigger).

But, IMHO, that's still quite a leap to saying a cop is not justified in pointing his gun at a potentially armed and dangerous suspect. If that were the case, we would not be justified in pulling our concealed guns on someone who might be a threat to our life because we might negligently discharge and injure someone.

With great power (the right to wield a deadly weapon) comes great responsibility (it's YOUR FAULT if you negligently discharge your weapon and it injures/kills someone). Because some cops have not lived up to that responsibility does mean all cops should lose that power.

handog wrote: 100% Well said austinrealtor, I would like to propose a beer summit .You, me and gigag04

Wait a minute .... does that make me the "Obama" of this beer summit?

gigag04 wrote:

suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.

Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.

Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.

Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.

And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.

To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?

handog & gigag04:

I respect both of your opinions greatly. I have read many comments from each of you and you both seem to be good, intelligent people based on what I've read. It's obvious that this case of the "failure to conceal" incident in Round Rock has the two of you on opposite ends of an argument. Gigag04, you weren't there and don't know the details beyond what handog has told us all here on the forum. Handog, you have made your case on this forum against RRPD and further discussion of it - especially bashing the police, however subtle it may seem to you - can be offensive to the "good cops" out there (and I have to assume that gigag04 is one of the good cops), and can also be offensive to those of us who respect the badge. I don't think you intend to bash all cops, and I do believe your axe to grind is specifically with the RRPD and the particular officers involved. But you have said that you intend to leave it alone because you don't have time/money or whatever to pursue the situation further. So perhaps it's time to let it lie here on the forum too? If there's new information, I'd be interested to hear it. But until then, I think we know everything we're going to know about this situation.

And for everyone else, let's not pile on either of these guys. Handog went through a very trying ordeal. And gigag04, I can only assume, goes through ordeals on a near daily basis as most law enforcement officers do.

Anyway, IANAM (I am not a moderator) and I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds. But I just thought I'd take a moment to ask you guys bury the hatchet on this issue. Further back-n-forth probably ain't gonna solve anything.

Again, I respect both your opinions and hope to read many more of your posts in the future.