TexasCHLforum.com

Well, it's been interesting. But I'm done debating folks who know they're opinion is the only correct opinion. Agree to disagree.

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

Winchster wrote:

Taypo wrote:This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

Taypo wrote:This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:
You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Thing is, there's no reason to push right up to the edge of the rules. The rules are there to protect both of us, and I know plenty of officers that don't need to push the edge to do their job. They just do it within the confines that the rules allow.

Winchster wrote:As to LEO's doing their job to protect me? That is not the focus of law enforcement. The courts have held The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.", so peddle those wares somewhere else.

That SCOTUS opinion is often misinterpreted and incorrectly used to suggest cops do not have a duty to protect. That ruling merely states an individual citizen cannot seek redress for LE not protecting that individual citizen (I.e. police are not your personal private security guards). But that ruling does not absolve LEOs from a general duty to protect. Such duty is spelled out in typical LE Agency policy and codified in Texas law (in other words if you shirk your duty to protect, you lose your job):

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.
(b) The officer shall:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;
(2) execute all lawful process issued to the officer by any magistrate or court;
(3) give notice to some magistrate of all offenses committed within the officer's jurisdiction, where the officer has good reason to believe there has been a violation of the penal law; and
(4) arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law, in order that they may be taken before the proper magistrate or court and be tried.
(c) It is the duty of every officer to take possession of a child under Article 63.009(g).

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote: Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

No. I firmly believe that the VAST majority of LEO's wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm going to do the best job I can do today, and hopefully come home safe"
I will state this again, If I'm doing nothing illegal by walking down the sidewalk, openly carrying my holstered pistol, there is not one single reason in the world any LEO should be able to walk up and ask to see my license. The amendment to the bill, prevents openly carried firearms from being the SOLE reason I be questioned. Whether that's informal or formal makes no difference.

Want a "reason"? How about the First Amendnent, does that work for you? Just because someone has a badge does not mean they don't also enjoy the same rights to free speech as you and everyone else. A cop can walk up and ASK you anything they want. You can respond or not however you chose.

You cannot seem to grasp the concept that ASKing and DEMANDing are two completely different actions. There is really nothing more to discuss until you grasp this concept.

Winchster wrote: My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

See my answer above. If someone without a badge walked up and asked you about your open carry gun, would you get all butthurt about that? What if a non-LEO stranger asked if you had a license for your gun, would that violate your rights?

But put a badge on someone and he can only take specific actions at specific times under specific situations that fit your worldview? If you don't want someone to "impose" upon you, the politely refuse to answer, or ignore and keep walking. You have a right to not be FORCED to identify yourself. You have no right to live in a bubble and never be approached nor questioned about anything by anybody. You have a right not to answer. You don't have a right to not be questioned.

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:
I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

what I actually wrote:positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

Possibly borderline harassing then not full acknowledgement, granted.
And you continue to play word games. It will absolutely become a stop when I tell a cop that requests my ID as a result of a dispatched MWAG call, to pound sand.

Look, I get it, you're most likely a LEO and you are probably one of the many that would approach your given scenario with an open mind. And obviously feel justified in doing exactly what you described. I will never tell a cop to pound sand when asked, not because I don't feel like I'm within my rights to do so, but there is virtually zero chance of it going "my way" by doing so in your scenario. There is a very, and I mean very, fine line between the definitions of ask and demand. If it's one, I can tell him to pound sand, if it's the other, I can't, legally. And curbside lawyering never works out for the citizen.

You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

what I actually wrote:positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

mojo84 wrote:Cops love it when people play poker with them and call their bluff.

Citizens obeying the law shouldn't be put in that position in the first place.

What position? Can you elaborate?

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:...But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

In my opinion, the hypothetical give-n-take you wrote is what is specifically prohibited. As soon as the officer requests ID, I am legally bound to provide my CHL. It becomes blatantly obvious at that point that I have been detained for no other reason than to determine my license status. I've never seen or heard of a LEO approaching someone just to "chat about the weather".

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=77279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Are you suggesting that in your hypothetical I request the officer articulate whether he is asking or demanding for my ID?
You can't be serious.

I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:...But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

In my opinion, the hypothetical give-n-take you wrote is what is specifically prohibited. As soon as the officer requests ID, I am legally bound to provide my CHL. It becomes blatantly obvious at that point that I have been detained for no other reason than to determine my license status. I've never seen or heard of a LEO approaching someone just to "chat about the weather".

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=77279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

Chas, as usual, is spot on. I'll only add a caveat to this link I started be certain we're all on the same page using same language to describe same police action ... viewtopic.php?f=82&t=77279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Above referenced case law in Chas' post states an investigatory stop/detention is not authorized for merely MWAG (and no other factors). But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

Mojo84,

I have addressed the purely "man with a holstered pistol" call numerous times over 2-3 replies. I'm adding subtle changes simply to illustrate how those subtle changes can drastically affect response.

As I said the calls that are purely MWAG and no other element should in the bubble of a perfect world be handled in the hands off, observe-and-report method you propose. But there are reasons, especially at first, why they may not be. This is pragmatic reality, not idealistic perfection.

Mojo84,

Your comparison (gun vs car) on the surface seems apples-to-apples, but we all know it's not. Cars and DLs have become a normal part of society. So nobody pays it no mind. Open carry handguns are not yet "normal" in Texas and won't be for a while. Perhaps when the first DLs were issued, or the first horseless buggies appeared in public, police then responded to numerous concerns.

That said, there are also subtle changes in the wording a caller uses that will elevate the response above "ma'am, open carry of handguns is legal now." The SCOTUS link refered to what is generically termed a "reckless driver" meaning someone driving erratically or dangerously - could be DWI, could be a Fast-n-Furious wannabe, could just be a "jerk" late for work, or could be someone driving in a reasonable manner that the caller "perceives" to be reckless. Point is someone called 911 to report reckless driving.

Now, to put that in a gun context, certainly if the call is literally just "a man has a holstered pistol at the Wal Mart" then eventually those calls should be explained by dispatch and not put out for patrol response. But realistically all a 911 caller really has to do to get an available patrol unit in route is articulate some perceived danger. Same as with a reckless driver. The reality or reasonableness of the actual danger posed is WHY police are sent - it's what they are there to determine. Making that determination is not the duty of the caller nor dispatcher.

mojo84 wrote:A-R, I understand where you are coming from. I also said earlier I will cooperate and be respectful.

However, to make a point on principle. How would it be handled if I called 911 to report I saw A-R driving a vehicle and I'm scared? Will the cop show up to check your license? What happens if not and you later run over someone?

It's going to take an adjustment period for all involved. I still maintain it comes down to common sense, attitude and training.

Maybe the chl badge idea wasn't so ludicrous after all.

RE: SCOTUS decision on traffic stop initiated solely on matching description from 911 call.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 0_3fb4.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to guns, like you said there's going to be an adjustment period. Mutual understanding and cooperation during that adjustment period will help, not hinder, the effective implementation of open carry. Hostility toward perceived police "harassment" will do the opposite.

Anygunanywhere & mojo84,

I won't/can't disagree with your logic. And I applaud the efficiency of your proposals - such streamlining would be a welcome improvement & benefit in a profession (LE) that is often understaffed and overworked.

But it's also a profession that is overseen by leaders who are directly elected (Sheriff, Constable) or who (Police Chief) serve at the privilege of leaders who are elected (Mayor, Council).

Point being, the first time a MWAG call is "disregarded" (no LEO makes scene) in the efficient way you propose and that MWAG causes some problem - anything from as petty as placing an influential member of the populace "in fear" to shooting up a school - then that directly or indirectly elected leader will be crucified in the court of pubic opinion and likely in the next election.

A lot of LEO response to seemingly trivial calls for service (especially in smaller departments) is a combination of PR & CYA (public relations and cover your assets). This is especially true in recent times with LEO's every action hyper scrutinized and a general anti-cop mentality becoming increasingly more pronounced. It's less prevalent in larger departments around large metro areas who can more easy justify ignoring minor fender benders etc. because a) they have budget for a technology work-around (go to this web site and fill out your own report), and b) their volume of higher priority calls makes ignoring trivial calls easier to explain.

Again, not saying this is "right" nor logical. Just saying it is what it is.

That said, the problem with the current OC proposal is that it creates a defacto grey area for LE in that any MWAG "could be" totally legitimate and legal or could be a serious crime (UCW) and there is no way to differentiate by simple observation. In your mind, you think "law abiding, leave me alone" but in the mind of average sheeple and especially hoplophobes they think "MWAG = possibility of criminal/evil intent or action".

It's a fine line. One that will require trust, understanding, and empathy for all involved.

A "positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

LEO: "Nice pistol. What is that, a _____?"

MWAG: "yes, it's a ____."

LEO: "Shoots good?"

MWAG: "yep"

LEO: "you have a license for it, right?"

MWAG: "yeah"

LEO: "Great. Hey, sorry to bother you, but would you mind showing me your license? We got a call from a concerned citizen. Would really help if I could just confirm to my dispatch that you're licensed so they can disregard any further calls about a man with a gun matching your description."

MWAG: "sure, here ya go" (hands CHL to LEO).

LEO: "thank you, Mr. _____. Sorry again to bother you. Be safe."

LEO to dispatch: "Subject wearing _____ is licensed. Any further calls may be disregarded or forwarded to me for officer response to caller by telephone. Back in service, no report."