An honest response from a local LEO (HB910)

[cb1000rider]

Your friend has a reasonable outlook.

We shouldn't need a law that protects us from non-voluntary LEO contact for engaging in legal behavior. I say "shouldn't".

We already have various instances in Texas where LEO contact is initiated due to legal carry of a firearm. I didn't say "smart carry" - I said legal carry. So we've proven that LEOs will demand ID. Unfortunately the burden of proving who is wrong in these cases will fall not on law enforcement, but on the public. That burden is in the form of arrest and associated legal fees - because even a not-guilty arrest comes with some punitive damages. And to some of us (like me) the arrest history alone would likely cost me 100s of thousands in lost employment opportunity over my lifetime. A not-guilty doesn't mean that employers can't consider it. LEOs are mostly indemnified due to qualified immunity - they're solving the problem at hand and in most peoples eyes doing so reasonably.

My take on what will happen: Without specific verbiage to prevent this sort of contact, LEOs will initiate it. A few people will refuse to comply, some will get taken to jail, all will be released (unless there isn't video evidence to support a non-LEO narrative). Eventually, we'll get someone who records such an event and has deep enough pockets to challenge the constitutionality of such a stop far enough up the chain that it becomes case law.... Assuming a DA somewhere is dumb enough to try to make the charges stick. As long as DA's dump the charges, the circle can continue.

Texas case law WILL stop most of it... At least that's my hope.

For 99.95% of the population this is a non-issue.

And I agree with having dispatch educate the public, but I also promise you that LEOs will respond to a MWAG call, even a legal MWAG call - as the political ramifications of not responding and have something "bad" happen are significant to leadership...

[A-R]

I asked him about the Ohio case in general and HB910.....

"As far as the Ohio case goes the reason, probably only reason, there is/was a 4th amendment claim is because he went well beyond just contacting the guy and asking to see his license or checking to see if he had one. The issue in my opinion was the whole disarming, handcuffing, length of detention, and then charging him with something it doesn't really seem that applies. If he had simply approached the guy, explained why he was there, and then verified the guy had a license it could've been a done deal and we would have never heard about it.

Disarming a CHL holder this is what TX law currently says:

GC 411.207 : (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.


" Obviously it is still to be seen what happens with the Texas law, but likely that it will pass. Basically from what I've seen for the most part it just changes the wording from "concealed" to essentially not conceal "in some type of holster". Doesn't change the requirements to have a license, have the license in possession when carrying, and display the license upon demand. The seizure question, I do not think, comes into play by simply making contact and asking to see the license, it's the disarming and length of contact/detention that is or will be the issue."

"As far as the way police here will handle open carry calls, here is what I suspect. When the law first is implemented it is very likely that we will get some calls. I really don't suspect there will be a huge influx of guys walking around with guns hanging off their hip, personally I would rather keep mine concealed and not advertise it. I would hope that we would train our dispatchers on what the new law is and they could screen out most of them by explaining the law and that it is now legal to open carry, unless the person is doing something wrong ( pulling gun out, displaying it, waving it around, etc) there is no reason for an officer to respond. Ofcourse you will have those who won't want to accept that answer and we will on occasion have to send and officer to check. Then it's simply do like I explained earlier, contact subject, explain why we are there, check/verify license and leave. I have never had an issue when dealing with a lawful CHL holder with them disclosing they had a firearm, making sure they didn't do anything silly while I was there, asking them a couple questions, and showing me their CHL."

I have done a ride along with him and he is a very common sense guy.

Wise man, your friend

[poppo]

And I agree with having dispatch educate the public, but I also promise you that LEOs will respond to a MWAG call, even a legal MWAG call - as the political ramifications of not responding and have something "bad" happen are significant to leadership...

Having been in debates with people from OC states about MWAG calls/responses, the highlighted part is something I can never get them to understand. They seem to think that as long as OC is legal, that LEOs should never respond to any MWAG call unless shots have already been fired.

[cb1000rider]

To me, it's no different than a "suspicious person" call. Police should check it out if they have available resources. However, contract should be voluntary... It's not a valid reason to compel ID or stop and search.

[Ruark]

I supposed I could tolerate a calm, polite request to quickly glance at my CHL and then let me go on my way, but I'm more concerned about those that are more on power trips - the ones that pull up with their cruisers with lights flashing, take your gun ("for your safety, sir"), go sit in their cars 10 minutes running your ID, ask you 25 questions about where you work, where you're going, etc. etc. etc. while a crowd gathers... while you're TRYING to just enjoy a nice Saturday afternoon stroll with your wife. Now that Dutton has been removed, this WILL happen.

[Rrash]

I supposed I could tolerate a calm, polite request to quickly glance at my CHL and then let me go on my way, but I'm more concerned about those that are more on power trips - the ones that pull up with their cruisers with lights flashing, take your gun ("for your safety, sir"), go sit in their cars 10 minutes running your ID, ask you 25 questions about where you work, where you're going, etc. etc. etc. while a crowd gathers... while you're TRYING to just enjoy a nice Saturday afternoon stroll with your wife. Now that Dutton has been removed, this WILL happen.

Make sure to record it when it does. I suspect it will happen once or twice, maybe. I also suspect that if it happens and makes the news more than twice, it will be addressed in 2017 when everyone simmers down and realizes that open carry is not that big a deal. I'm more interested in HB308 in 2017 than I am in HB910 in 2015 to be honest.

[Jumping Frog]

And I agree with having dispatch educate the public, but I also promise you that LEOs will respond to a MWAG call, even a legal MWAG call - as the political ramifications of not responding and have something "bad" happen are significant to leadership...

Having been in debates with people from OC states about MWAG calls/responses, the highlighted part is something I can never get them to understand. They seem to think that as long as OC is legal, that LEOs should never respond to any MWAG call unless shots have already been fired.

That is not consistent with the conversations and discussions I have personally seen from other states. Most reasonable people agree if a police officer is dispatched in response to a MWAG call, the police should proceed to the location. However, what to do next depends on the situation. A reasonable approach would be for the police to observe the OC themselves.

If it is something innocuous, like a man and wife walking the dog on a leash in a park and the man has a holstered handgun on his hip with no other indicators of trouble, then there is really no reason for the LEO to approach, detain, and demand identification. I was personally observed by LEO's on many occasions (dozens) while open carrying where there was no interaction or stop. I had 2 or 3 occasions where the LEO approached, engaged in brief polite conversation and moved on. I was never asked to produce ID.

However, if the OC is doing something that is reasonably suspicious, then have at it. For example, I know of one OC'er who was standing outside his car in a parking lot just outside of Target. He was re-arming in public and was detained at gunpoint. His words (note that carrying in churches is illegal in Ohio unless express permission is obtained):

I attend a church hosted at the Lenox AMC theater right off campus. Every Sunday morning I follow this same routine: disarm at the vehicle, attend church, re-arm at the vehicle.

I do tend to re-arm while standing between the door and the car, because I find it difficult to re-arm while sitting in the car without breaking rule #1 ala always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

This week someone or someones apparently saw me do this and called the police.(http://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic. ... 5#p4264475" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

Arming oneself in public before entering a Target department store is reasonably suspicious in my mind, and I have no problem with police responding to a MWAG call with investigatory detention.

[jmra]

Here is the problem I see with LEO responding to every call of someone OCing a handgun...groups like MDA will start patrols looking for people OCing and will flood police departments with calls (this is assuming people actually OC when/if this bill passes). These groups will start campaigns to recruit mindless robots to do the same (there are a lot of mindless robots out there).
No, I believe police departments have to train 911 operators to ask the right questions to determine if a crime is being committed. It is my understanding that much of OK has taken this approach and it has been very effective in limiting unnecessary dispatches of LEO.

[CJD]

Here is the problem I see with LEO responding to every call of someone OCing a handgun...groups like MDA will start patrols looking for people OCing and will flood police departments with calls (this is assuming people actually OC when/if this bill passes).

Not only that, but they will lie about what the OCer is doing in order to cause alarm and an aggressive LEO response, and doubtfully see any consequences for their actions.

[TXBO]

That is not consistent with the conversations and discussions I have personally seen from other states. Most reasonable people agree if a police officer is dispatched in response to a MWAG call, the police should proceed to the location. However, what to do next depends on the situation. A reasonable approach would be for the police to observe the OC themselves.

If it is something innocuous, like a man and wife walking the dog on a leash in a park and the man has a holstered handgun on his hip with no other indicators of trouble, then there is really no reason for the LEO to approach, detain, and demand identification. I was personally observed by LEO's on many occasions (dozens) while open carrying where there was no interaction or stop. I had 2 or 3 occasions where the LEO approached, engaged in brief polite conversation and moved on. I was never asked to produce ID.

However, if the OC is doing something that is reasonably suspicious, then have at it. For example, I know of one OC'er who was standing outside his car in a parking lot just outside of Target. He was re-arming in public and was detained at gunpoint. His words (note that carrying in churches is illegal in Ohio unless express permission is obtained):

....

This approach is consistent with my experience in Arizona. At the time I lived there, open carry was unlicensed and concealed carry was licensed. I had many friends in LEO that all agreed that criminals don't open carry and don't use holsters. If you see someone open carrying, observe for a moment and move on. Licensed open carry does however make that a little more difficult. Without a license, if you open carry, you're now a criminal.

[mojo84]

Arming oneself in public before entering a Target department store is reasonably suspicious in my mind, and I have no problem with police responding to a MWAG call with investigatory detention.

I noticed the cop didn't do anything until the person was leaving the store and walking to his car. I would think if he was considered a risk of robbing the Target, the cop would have intervened while he was in the store and not wait till the guy was peacefully walking to his vehicle after shopping to draw down on him.

I also believe the gun carrier should have been more discreet and that he brought the attention on himself even though I do not agree with the manner in which the officer handled it.

[joe817]

I don't think we should be giving any of the opposition to the bill a roadmap to follow. Just a suggestion.... It would be nice to keep this a positive discussion.

Trying to predict what will or will not happen after HB910 passes, with or with out the amendment is leading to an infinite amount of counterproductive discussions, IMO.