Article: philosophy same despite new handgun law

[Baytown]

Good points all, though grey areas and officer discretion are good things.

Now, what we need in order to have all this non-sense stop to increase the the criteria for travelling.

If, for instnace you have been convicted of any sort of Misd A or B in the last 5 or 10 years, it would disqualify. That would cover car burglars, dope smokers, etc...

I fear that if a thug is the test case, the courts will rule against our side and we lose ground. Why would anyone care if a thug/thug can not carry a gun in his car, but you still can.

Honest, law abiding people, have little to fear.

Glenn

[stevie_d_64]

Good points all, though grey areas and officer discretion are good things.

Now, what we need in order to have all this non-sense stop to increase the the criteria for travelling.

If, for instnace you have been convicted of any sort of Misd A or B in the last 5 or 10 years, it would disqualify. That would cover car burglars, dope smokers, etc...

I fear that if a thug is the test case, the courts will rule against our side and we lose ground. Why would anyone care if a thug/thug can not carry a gun in his car, but you still can.

Honest, law abiding people, have little to fear.

Glenn

I hope you didn't think I was not agreeing with you Baytown...

I am with you on those points, totally...

I wish there was a way to cut and paste your suggestions in a letter and get them to someone who could incorporate them into quantifiable action in the next session...

Maybe someone already has, but I am not sure if these dangling participles will ever be truely resolved and all the ambiguity removed from all of this...

For what its worth, I believe the people who are at a disadvantage the most, are people like you in Law Enforcement...

Even the most "over-zealous" are more than likely just a product of the ambiguities of "bad law"...So I can't, and really won't throw big rocks at them for being that way...

I guess I feel 2007 is going to be at best a "clean-up" session in regards to CHL issues...Which may turn out to be good for everyone, we can only hope...

[Charles L. Cotton]

We need to remember something. If a person isn't prohibited from possessing firearms, then this same person could have a rifle or shotgun in the car and not be subject to arrest. I certainly would never support restricting the possession of long guns, so I don't really see that prohibiting possession of a handgun in a car adds anything. If he steps out of the car with his pistol, he’s yours!

In all candor, I suspect the change in 2007 will be substantial and not leaving one single thing open to interpretation. The Legislature is rightfully offended at elected officials, law enforcement agencies and the Texas District and County Attorney Association (TDCAA) for ignoring the officially declared (House Journal entry by Keel) Legislative intent of HB823. The actions of such persons and entities should be above reproach, should reflect the utmost in accountability, responsibility, intellectual honesty and respect for the legislative branch and the law. When they choose to ignore the intent of the law, lie about the specifics of the new statutory presumption (certain DA’s), and look for ways to circumvent a statute they don't like, then the Legislature is likely to treat them accordingly.

If the change I suspect comes to fruition, then those who now seek to act as though HB823 "didn't change anything" will have only themselves to blame.

Regards,
Chas.

[KBCraig]

I mildly disagree with the grandmother test case. I think we will be better
served if that case is the street thug, for the very simple reason that if
the law applies to him, then by extension it applies to the other vast
majority of folks, like the grandmother, who never live outside of, or on
the edge of, the law.

Thanks, Tom. That's my point, too: if Granny is the test case, then Baytown could still argue that his hypothetical doper prowling the streets at 0300 was a thug that "most people would want locked up".

Kevin

[Baytown]

Good Lord, I am all over the place on this!! I found myself arguing with another officer tonight that if you meet the presumption of travelling, you are off limits.

It should also be remembered that just because a complaint was stamped for UCW, does not mean it was not filed as being a felon in possession of a firearm. So when the newspaper got the information from us, that is the way the complaint may have been stamped. As the DA prepares to take it to trial and researches the case, they may or may not have found the person was a prior felon.

Understand also that there are times when the person is a prior felon, but the DA's office will not take the charge of UCW. This is especially true if the courts are in another county or even more so if the courts were out of state.

Good point Charles about them getting out of the car. If the person gets out of the car and the gun is in the waistband...click, click.

Glenn

[KBCraig]

Good Lord, I am all over the place on this!! I found myself arguing with another officer tonight that if you meet the presumption of travelling, you are off limits.

'Sokay, I often find myself arguing against people who take the position I support, because they've arrived there for the wrong reasons. Or, being agreeable with someone whose position I feel is wrong, because they're applying the right tests, just reaching the wrong conclusion, and I feel they can be "saved".

It should also be remembered that just because a complaint was stamped for UCW, does not mean it was not filed as being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Now you're introducing new stuff to the equation. A person who is prohibited from owning a firearm cannot meet the "travelling" test, and would be UCW. That's why I made the comment about an officer being a sluff if the only charge he could find to file was UCW. As I said, if that's all there is, then he's not UCW per the law, so don't arrest him for that.

That's why I found your hypothetical doper a poor example. If he's involved in drugs, probably dealing, probably casing a convenience store or neighborhood, then there's got to be something legitimate for which to arrest him. Such as, being a felon or other prohibited person in possession of a firearm.

Remember, a "prohibited person" includes someone who is an addict or unlawful user of drugs. You might have a hard time getting the AUSA to take charges over a hot UA, though.

Kevin

[Baytown]

The felon thing came along because any of those two people that strated this discussion, may or may not have been prior felons. It is in the way our system is set up.

Ofter times an officer will tell dispatch to stamp a complaint for UCW but it is really going to be Felon in Poss....

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on this one.

Glenn

[KBCraig]

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on this one.

Glenn

Likewise. If you don't mind, I've got another question for you.

I know that you can check wants & warrants when checking the DL. But how much criminal history is available to you while you're in the field? Do you have to run NCIC separately, and is NCIC authorized in a case like this?

I'm not involved in NCIC at work, but I know it's a hot issue if anyone fails to keep the proper logs, or if they run it outside of the permissable uses. (You DON'T want to get caught checking out a neighbor, or daughter's boyfriend!)

Kevin

[Baytown]

We have very littel access in the field. All we see in the field is what they have been handled for locally. If have been convicted of murder in LA, we would never know. We have access to NCIC warrants, but no histories.

We run a CCH (complete criminal history) when we get the guy to jail as long as it is a Misd B or above. If I instanter someone on traffic, I would never know what he has been handled for outside of the county.

Glenn