Are CHL holder’s Scrutinized more than non license holders?

[nitrogen]

It'd be qa good idea to show your CHL when stopped, or showing ID even if youre not carrying. When your ID gets run, it'll come up that you're a CHL holder, and if you didn't previously display, the officer might get antsy.

[srothstein]

But, just for arguments sake what is the legal defintion of "on or about the license holder's person"? Especially as it relates to having a weapon in the center console or similarly hidden.

The legal interpretation the courts have been using is if it is within grabbing or lunging distance. If you can get the gun without having to unlock the glove box, or go to another area, it is generally considered to be on or about your person. Center consoles are generally considered on the person while passenger side glove boxes have gone both ways. Locked containers are almost always not considered on your person.

I would guess the courts will continue to use the common sense attitude of "Was it where you could use it quickly?" If it was, consider it on or about your person. If it is not, consider it not on the person. So if you are carrying for self-defense purposes, it is probably going to be accessible for quick use and considered on or about your person.

[txinvestigator]

It'd be qa good idea to show your CHL when stopped, or showing ID even if youre not carrying. When your ID gets run, it'll come up that you're a CHL holder, and if you didn't previously display, the officer might get antsy.

Who cares if he gets "antsy". Obey they law, and don't worry about the rest.

[seamusTX]

Who cares if he gets "antsy".

Innocent people have died because LEOs "got antsy."

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

Who cares if he gets "antsy".

Innocent people have died because LEOs "got antsy."

- Jim

Yeah, If I leave my handgun at home, get pulled over, and don't show the cop my CHL, he might run my DL and began to fire into my car when the CHl returns on his radio.

[stevie_d_64]

Thread killers!

[seamusTX]

Yeah, If I leave my handgun at home, get pulled over, and don't show the cop my CHL, he might run my DL and began to fire into my car when the CHl returns on his radio.

Of course not. You know the secret police handshake.

From "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws by By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel (http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html#c36)

While the vast majority of police officers are likewise competent, it would be a grave mistake to imagine that police officers are immune from the foibles and stresses can lead to unlawful shootings. ne study of 1,500 incidents involving police use of deadly force concluded that deadly force was not justified in 40% of the incidents, and was questionable in another 20%. Using evidence from the Chicago Police Department's internal investigations, one scholar found 14% of killings by Chicago officers to be "prima facie cases of manslaughter or murder" and "Several others presented factual anomalies sufficient to suggest that a thorough investigation might well have revealed such prima facie cases." Not a single one of those was prosecuted--or even reprimanded for shootings in plain violation of official policy.

Whenever a New York City police officer fires a gun (outside of a target range), police officials review the incident. About 20% of discharges have been determined to be accidental, and another 10% to be intentional discharges in violation of force policy. In other words, only 70% of firearms discharges by police are intentional and in compliance with force policy. In Los Angeles, 75% of shootings by police officers led to discipline of the officer or retraining because the officer had made an error.

- Jim

[Mithras61]

Yeah, If I leave my handgun at home, get pulled over, and don't show the cop my CHL, he might run my DL and began to fire into my car when the CHl returns on his radio.

Of course not. You know the secret police handshake.

From "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws by By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel (http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html#c36)

While the vast majority of police officers are likewise competent, it would be a grave mistake to imagine that police officers are immune from the foibles and stresses can lead to unlawful shootings. ne study of 1,500 incidents involving police use of deadly force concluded that deadly force was not justified in 40% of the incidents, and was questionable in another 20%. Using evidence from the Chicago Police Department's internal investigations, one scholar found 14% of killings by Chicago officers to be "prima facie cases of manslaughter or murder" and "Several others presented factual anomalies sufficient to suggest that a thorough investigation might well have revealed such prima facie cases." Not a single one of those was prosecuted--or even reprimanded for shootings in plain violation of official policy.

Whenever a New York City police officer fires a gun (outside of a target range), police officials review the incident. About 20% of discharges have been determined to be accidental, and another 10% to be intentional discharges in violation of force policy. In other words, only 70% of firearms discharges by police are intentional and in compliance with force policy. In Los Angeles, 75% of shootings by police officers led to discipline of the officer or retraining because the officer had made an error.

- Jim

Not trying to start an arguement, but how do stats from Chicago PD, NYPD & LAPD affect/reflect on Texas LEOs?

I suspect & suggest that in parts of the country where firearm ownership is severely restricted (such as in these cities), incidents of PD use of deadly force are increased when a firearm is found in the possesion of the shot/deceased. Since such is not the case in Texas, these statistics are unlikely to hold up.

[txinvestigator]

Yeah, If I leave my handgun at home, get pulled over, and don't show the cop my CHL, he might run my DL and began to fire into my car when the CHl returns on his radio.

Of course not. You know the secret police handshake.

From "Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws by By Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel (http://rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html#c36)

While the vast majority of police officers are likewise competent, it would be a grave mistake to imagine that police officers are immune from the foibles and stresses can lead to unlawful shootings. ne study of 1,500 incidents involving police use of deadly force concluded that deadly force was not justified in 40% of the incidents, and was questionable in another 20%. Using evidence from the Chicago Police Department's internal investigations, one scholar found 14% of killings by Chicago officers to be "prima facie cases of manslaughter or murder" and "Several others presented factual anomalies sufficient to suggest that a thorough investigation might well have revealed such prima facie cases." Not a single one of those was prosecuted--or even reprimanded for shootings in plain violation of official policy.

Whenever a New York City police officer fires a gun (outside of a target range), police officials review the incident. About 20% of discharges have been determined to be accidental, and another 10% to be intentional discharges in violation of force policy. In other words, only 70% of firearms discharges by police are intentional and in compliance with force policy. In Los Angeles, 75% of shootings by police officers led to discipline of the officer or retraining because the officer had made an error.

- Jim

Not trying to start an arguement, but how do stats from Chicago PD, NYPD & LAPD affect/reflect on Texas LEOs?

I suspect & suggest that in parts of the country where firearm ownership is severely restricted (such as in these cities), incidents of PD use of deadly force are increased when a firearm is found in the possesion of the shot/deceased. Since such is not the case in Texas, these statistics are unlikely to hold up.

As I have said about statistics, the freeway near my house is safe for 10 year olds to ride their bicycles. statistics show that NO 10 year old has EVER been killled or injured riding their bicycle there.

[seamusTX]

Not trying to start an arguement, but how do stats from Chicago PD, NYPD & LAPD affect/reflect on Texas LEOs?

I don't know, and the only information I can find is from sources like the ACLU that would be dismissed in this discussion.

- Jim

[Bubba]

Just FYI, there is no statutory duty to inform in Colorado. Maybe Texas will repeal that part of it, OK, never mind I'm just dreaming :)

[wo5m]

OK I knew after I posted I was going to get at least one reply saying "Life Isn't always fair". To answer another question, no I don't have a problem disclosing to law officer nor am I arguing that the CHL law should be changed. I guess I was more stocked the someone traveling didn't have to identify. Don't get me wrong I fully support right of packing while traveling, I just thought that would have same stipulation's as a CHL as long as there are protections to guard against local DA's who don't like the law. However I hope the latest version of the law helps out in that area.

wo5m

[seamusTX]

I just thought that would have same stipulation's as a CHL as long as there are protections to guard against local DA's who don't like the law.

What the legislature did was perfectly logical. They made it legal to have a concealed handgun in your vehicle. It was always legal to have a long gun, or a handgun while traveling -- and you were not required to inform an officer during a traffic stop.

The CHL law is an anomaly. As I understand it, when the CHL law was being debated in the 1990s, some police officials were concerned about officers not knowing whether the driver had a weapon during a traffic stop. Therefore the legilature required CHL holders to identify themselves.

(Criminals, of course, rarely disclose this information.)

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

The CHL law is an anomaly. As I understand it, when the CHL law was being debated in the 1990s, some police officials were concerned about officers not knowing whether the driver had a weapon during a traffic stop. Therefore the legilature required CHL holders to identify themselves.

(Criminals, of course, rarely disclose this information.)

- Jim

The ironic thing is that in the past, LEO's never knew whether a subject had a weapon during a traffic stop.

So they pass a law saying that the people least likely to pose a threat to the LEO (i.e. CHL's) had to disclose their status.

Non-licensed "travellers" were not required to disclose their status.

And the only group that presented any significant danger to LEO's - criminals - were neither required nor could be expected to declare they were carrying a gun.

Since someone's CHL status comes up on the LEO's screen when they run a check, the only "logic" to this is if one starts with the premise that CHL's might get angry enough during a traffic stop that they would ambush a cop.

While this may have seemed plausible, or at least possible, at one time (prior to adopting shall issue CHL's), our current extensive experience with CHL's demonstrates that there is no need for the requirement today.

I have no problem with disclosing my status. I just felt like showing that there was no logical reason for it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As mentioned earlier, the requirement to show your CHL along with your ID was the product of the near hysteria created by those opposed to SB60, fueled by some but not all of the media. It was never logical, but it was necessary to get the bill passed.

I agree that it should be repealed, but it's such a low priority item that we have much more important things to work on in 2009. Perhaps it could be made part of a larger "clean up" bill, but that will be decided much closer to the 2009 session.

Chas.