The Future of LEO Attitude Towards CHL Holders

[KRM45]

Here, he has a documented case of attempted suicide / and drug abuse. I believe if he were a Texas CHL holder he would have had his plastic taken away from him. The point is that statistically we are better behaved than even the LEOs, and that the law as it is written will prevent CHLs from legally carrying if we show the same downward spiralling signs. Because of this we are statistically less likely to snap than the officer who may be disarming us.

I would like to see those statistics. Certainly police loosing it makes the news more than CHL's do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If I get drunk and threaten to kill myself in front of my preacher nobody ever finds out. If the police do it, it's fron page news.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. First, as pointed out, even if the CHL numebrs double, it is still not a really significant portion of the public. And that is without taking into account how many will actually meet the police.

I think, if anything, the numbers of CHL's meeting the police growing is a good thing. One of the major problems in police work is remembering that there are good people out there who are not cops. Having a CHL reminds the cops of this very subtly. But it does work to remind cops of this. It has been well documented as a problem for cops that after a certain time period (usually the first couple years), they tend to start seeing the world as a mixture of cops and bad guys. If you are not a cop, you are bad. This comes about because the rookies tend to get assigned to the worst neighborhoods and all they get to deal with are the bad people. The few good people they get to deal with are in a bad situation. Off duty they tend to hang out with other cops. So, it is easy for some cops to develop the cops versus everyone attitudes.

We fight it and try our best to get new cops to develop hobbies and hang around with non-cops when off duty. This keeps them in the real world where there are good guys, bad guys, and the biggest majority (including most cops) are somewhere in between. It helps them remember that the average person is a good person, even if he just made a mistake and did something wrong. It also helps them keep in touch with how the rest of the community sees the crime problem and what makes a bad person bad. When they come up on a CHL, there is a gentle reminder that this is a good person who just made some minor mistake. If they are not yet in the us versus them attitude, this helps them realize that not everyone needs to get a ticket or go to jail. So, I figure the more cops get this quiet reminder, the better they are. After all, in real life, 90% of the people are good people.

I think this quiet reminder is also why so many cops do let CHL's off with minor violations. It is not a hard and fast rule, but it is a reminder that even a good person can make a minor mistake. And for those of us who like guns, it gives us something to talk about with you to be even more person like. I think I am more likely to be easier with you fi I see you as a person, and you are more likely to listen to my wanring and learn from it if you see me as a person and friend, instead of a nameless authority figure.

Excellent post (again).

Thank you for sharing your insights. It really helped me to understand the feelings some LEO may develop after being in service for a period of time.

Yes it is -- an excellent post.

Chas.

[RHZig]

I work in one of the CHL rich areas and I would say that one in twenty vehicles I stop have a CHL on board. However, I am usually working interdiction trying to find burglars, drunks, and druggies. If I see you have a CHL, I immediately know that you're not what I'm looking for (in most cases). Unless of course you're going way too fast or you're driving like an idiot.




I see the mentality that some officers carry around with them. Some officers I know look at everyone the same unless they have a reason not to. It doesn't mean anything to 'em if you have a CHL. But we do deal with a lot of idiots and people that have no business carrying a CHL. It's nothing against CHLers.
I don't think the attitude towards CHLers is going to change. Still, there's always going to be way more non CHLs than CHL out there.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here, he has a documented case of attempted suicide / and drug abuse. I believe if he were a Texas CHL holder he would have had his plastic taken away from him. The point is that statistically we are better behaved than even the LEOs, and that the law as it is written will prevent CHLs from legally carrying if we show the same downward spiralling signs. Because of this we are statistically less likely to snap than the officer who may be disarming us.

I would like to see those statistics. Certainly police loosing it makes the news more than CHL's do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If I get drunk and threaten to kill myself in front of my preacher nobody ever finds out. If the police do it, it's fron page news.

You won't find those statistics published anywhere. I have published a detailed analysis of the CHL crime rates vs. the general public aged 21 yrs and over. The analysis is attached to the initial post on that thread and it covers the issue from different approaches. (I'm not taking credit for it; a summer intern from UT did it and she did an excellent job.) The results of this five year analysis are nothing less than astounding. I always knew CHLs had an excellent track record, but this was better than I had hoped. A short and incomplete summary of the numbers appears on the original post, if you don't want to read the entire analysis.

As for LEO crime stats, I have those as well, but I have not and will not publish them on an open forum. The sole reason I obtained this information in an Open Records Request (after many months of delays) was to be ready if we face any more garbage from CLEAT or anyone else. I will not be the source of LEO-bashing either on this forum or in the public media. Like the handgun I carry, I view these statistics as purely defensive, to be used only when honest gun owners and CHLs are "attacked" in the Legislature. Based upon this analysis, I can state that Stephen is absolutely correct and by a wide margin, by multiples in fact, not just a few percentage points.

I know I'm doing something I don't like doing, i.e. just saying "trust me," but under these circumstances, I have no choice.

Chas.

[CHLSteve]

But we do deal with a lot of idiots and people that have no business carrying a CHL.

I think that number might be going way up in the next few months. I guess time will tell, but wouldn't the number of officers who "it doesn't mean anything to 'em if you have a CHL" also increase?

I know some of these people who shouldn't be getting a CHL (IMHO), and I know some who actually got theirs for a "get out of a speeding ticket" purpose (stupid, I know), but I'm just pointing out some examples.

[casingpoint]

Let's see...300,000 CHL's X $140 each = $42,000,000 (read forty-two million dollars gross revenue).

No wonder almost every state in The Rebulbic is in the game.

[RHZig]

I guess time will tell, but wouldn't the number of officers who "it doesn't mean anything to 'em if you have a CHL" also increase?

I am unlike most officers and can only answer for myself; I don't know. I think most reasonable, prudent thinking officers can tell who they're dealing with when it comes to a CHLer. Are there idiots that get a CHL because they heard it was a get out of jail free card? Sure there are. Can you tell when you come across one of these people? Maybe, sometimes.

[WildBill]

I know I'm doing something I don't like doing, i.e. just saying "trust me," but under these circumstances, I have no choice.

Chas.

It's always a good idea to keep your "back-up" concealed.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let's see...300,000 CHL's X $140 each = $42,000,000 (read forty-two million dollars gross revenue).

No wonder almost every state in The Rebulbic is in the game.

The State isn't doing bad "selling" CHLs that's for sure. However, $140 is only the initial license fee; renewals are only $70. If you qualify for a discount (age 60, LEO, former military, etc.) then the numbers are $70 and $35. Since DPS has to pay the FBI $24.50 (newly discounted rate), then a $35 renewal doesn't begin to cover the cost of processing.

This is why I discourage any talk about reducing fees further. Someone in Austin may take a look at the numbers!

Chas.

[KRM45]

Here, he has a documented case of attempted suicide / and drug abuse. I believe if he were a Texas CHL holder he would have had his plastic taken away from him. The point is that statistically we are better behaved than even the LEOs, and that the law as it is written will prevent CHLs from legally carrying if we show the same downward spiralling signs. Because of this we are statistically less likely to snap than the officer who may be disarming us.

I would like to see those statistics. Certainly police loosing it makes the news more than CHL's do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If I get drunk and threaten to kill myself in front of my preacher nobody ever finds out. If the police do it, it's fron page news.

You won't find those statistics published anywhere. I have published a detailed analysis of the CHL crime rates vs. the general public aged 21 yrs and over. The analysis is attached to the initial post on that thread and it covers the issue from different approaches. (I'm not taking credit for it; a summer intern from UT did it and she did an excellent job.) The results of this five year analysis are nothing less than astounding. I always knew CHLs had an excellent track record, but this was better than I had hoped. A short and incomplete summary of the numbers appears on the original post, if you don't want to read the entire analysis.

As for LEO crime stats, I have those as well, but I have not and will not publish them on an open forum. The sole reason I obtained this information in an Open Records Request (after many months of delays) was to be ready if we face any more garbage from CLEAT or anyone else. I will not be the source of LEO-bashing either on this forum or in the public media. Like the handgun I carry, I view these statistics as purely defensive, to be used only when honest gun owners and CHLs are "attacked" in the Legislature. Based upon this analysis, I can state that Stephen is absolutely correct and by a wide margin, by multiples in fact, not just a few percentage points.

I know I'm doing something I don't like doing, i.e. just saying "trust me," but under these circumstances, I have no choice.

Chas.

I know those statistics are not published. That's why it bothers me when people throw around statements like the one I responded to. I would not be surprised at the results either way, but to throw out statements that can not be proven as a way to bash LEOs serves no purpose. I believe it drives the wedge even futher in the "us vs. them" attitude.

[apostate]

Excluding roadblocks, I have been stopped by police four or five times since I got my CHL. I received a ticket each time.

There was one time I received a warning instead of a ticket when I was 16 or 17 but I obviously didn't have a CHL then.

So, in my experience, it seems that having a CHL makes me more likely to receive a ticket rather than a warning.

[Liberty]

Here, he has a documented case of attempted suicide / and drug abuse. I believe if he were a Texas CHL holder he would have had his plastic taken away from him. The point is that statistically we are better behaved than even the LEOs, and that the law as it is written will prevent CHLs from legally carrying if we show the same downward spiralling signs. Because of this we are statistically less likely to snap than the officer who may be disarming us.

I would like to see those statistics. Certainly police loosing it makes the news more than CHL's do, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If I get drunk and threaten to kill myself in front of my preacher nobody ever finds out. If the police do it, it's fron page news.

You won't find those statistics published anywhere. I have published a detailed analysis of the CHL crime rates vs. the general public aged 21 yrs and over. The analysis is attached to the initial post on that thread and it covers the issue from different approaches. (I'm not taking credit for it; a summer intern from UT did it and she did an excellent job.) The results of this five year analysis are nothing less than astounding. I always knew CHLs had an excellent track record, but this was better than I had hoped. A short and incomplete summary of the numbers appears on the original post, if you don't want to read the entire analysis.

As for LEO crime stats, I have those as well, but I have not and will not publish them on an open forum. The sole reason I obtained this information in an Open Records Request (after many months of delays) was to be ready if we face any more garbage from CLEAT or anyone else. I will not be the source of LEO-bashing either on this forum or in the public media. Like the handgun I carry, I view these statistics as purely defensive, to be used only when honest gun owners and CHLs are "attacked" in the Legislature. Based upon this analysis, I can state that Stephen is absolutely correct and by a wide margin, by multiples in fact, not just a few percentage points.

I know I'm doing something I don't like doing, i.e. just saying "trust me," but under these circumstances, I have no choice.
Chas.

I know those statistics are not published. That's why it bothers me when people throw around statements like the one I responded to. I would not be surprised at the results either way, but to throw out statements that can not be proven as a way to bash LEOs serves no purpose. I believe it drives the wedge even futher in the "us vs. them" attitude.

I am sorry that you see it that way. I knew of the research and trusted the source. Even though Charles has decided not to share the exact details. I can not see where I was bashing anyone. I was stating facts as I understand them. You may not realize sir, but there is a movement to allow CHL holders the right to carry anywhere that offduty officers have the right to carry. I maintain that we are as a group more trustworthy than the the LEO community. It is in this spirit that I raised the issue. And that is the reason why I bring it up. That sir, is not a slam on the LEO community but praise of the CHL community. Please consider that an LEO who believes that they are better behaved than any other demographic may be the one who is driving wedges.

Charles, I apologize for putting you on the spot about those figures, BTW: it was me that posted the so called wedge driving comments not Stephen but Liberty AKA Raymond.

Nuff said, I gonna go and spit out some nails now.

[stevie_d_64]

I don't think you have anything to worry about. First, as pointed out, even if the CHL numebrs double, it is still not a really significant portion of the public. And that is without taking into account how many will actually meet the police.

I think, if anything, the numbers of CHL's meeting the police growing is a good thing. One of the major problems in police work is remembering that there are good people out there who are not cops. Having a CHL reminds the cops of this very subtly. But it does work to remind cops of this. It has been well documented as a problem for cops that after a certain time period (usually the first couple years), they tend to start seeing the world as a mixture of cops and bad guys. If you are not a cop, you are bad. This comes about because the rookies tend to get assigned to the worst neighborhoods and all they get to deal with are the bad people. The few good people they get to deal with are in a bad situation. Off duty they tend to hang out with other cops. So, it is easy for some cops to develop the cops versus everyone attitudes.

We fight it and try our best to get new cops to develop hobbies and hang around with non-cops when off duty. This keeps them in the real world where there are good guys, bad guys, and the biggest majority (including most cops) are somewhere in between. It helps them remember that the average person is a good person, even if he just made a mistake and did something wrong. It also helps them keep in touch with how the rest of the community sees the crime problem and what makes a bad person bad. When they come up on a CHL, there is a gentle reminder that this is a good person who just made some minor mistake. If they are not yet in the us versus them attitude, this helps them realize that not everyone needs to get a ticket or go to jail. So, I figure the more cops get this quiet reminder, the better they are. After all, in real life, 90% of the people are good people.

I think this quiet reminder is also why so many cops do let CHL's off with minor violations. It is not a hard and fast rule, but it is a reminder that even a good person can make a minor mistake. And for those of us who like guns, it gives us something to talk about with you to be even more person like. I think I am more likely to be easier with you fi I see you as a person, and you are more likely to listen to my wanring and learn from it if you see me as a person and friend, instead of a nameless authority figure.

Excellent post (again).

Thank you for sharing your insights. It really helped me to understand the feelings some LEO may develop after being in service for a period of time.

I believe it is of equal importance for those on our side of the equation to absolutely understand that our CHL license does not give us any pass on anything outside of the provisions we carry a firearm under in the law...

I would like to throw something out there for general consumption...The whole debate about "us" vs. "law enforcement" in my opinion has really gotten out of hand...I do not believe it should be a contenscious existence...

The relationship is similar in regards to one thing...We carry a firearm for lawful self defensive purposes, thats it, nothing more...Law Enforcement carry a firearm for the purpose to serve and protect the community where they "enforce" the law...

[srothstein]

We fight it and try our best to get new cops to develop hobbies and hang around with non-cops when off duty.

How do you do this?

There are several ways, some that are direct and some that are a little more subtle. During my academies, I teacha class on officer safety. I break the class down into three areas: physical, financial, and mental. Obviously we spend a lot of time on the physical side with how you can get hurt and so on. It is what most cops expect when they see a class titled officer safety. I also add in the parts on being sued and how to treat people right as a self-interest thing. I go over what gets complaints filed and how to avoid being sued as a person (instead of as an official that the agency would defend). A lot of cops are unaware that they can be targeted for the lawsuit in such a manner as the department will not defend them.

And I add in the mental part, bringing up burnout, stress, the suicide rate, divorce rate, etc. It is always mentioned during this part of the class with asking them what they did as hobbies before, what they can do now and so on.

For the subtle part, I try to get them to interact with people during the academy when I can. this gets a little trickier because I have to do it in such a manner as to cover the agency also. But, I do it. For example, during the last academy, when we had a slack day, we scheduled tours of a vineyard, distillery, and brew pub so the agents got to meet the people working there in a non-adversarial manner. It also showed them some things most had never seen before (a real still for example). I try to get other non-officers involved in classes when I can. We made sure this time that our auditors (non-sworn employees who check bars also) were treated equally with the agents during the training, even having the auditors riding along on patrol. Using the non-sworn employees of the agency is a start on the problem, though not as complete since they still work with us. When I can, I will get others involved also. Anything that helps both sides (the citizens and the officers) know each other as people helps prevent the problem.

[KRM45]

I am sorry that you see it that way. I knew of the research and trusted the source. Even though Charles has decided not to share the exact details. I can not see where I was bashing anyone. I was stating facts as I understand them. You may not realize sir, but there is a movement to allow CHL holders the right to carry anywhere that offduty officers have the right to carry. I maintain that we are as a group more trustworthy than the the LEO community. It is in this spirit that I raised the issue. And that is the reason why I bring it up. That sir, is not a slam on the LEO community but praise of the CHL community. Please consider that an LEO who believes that they are better behaved than any other demographic may be the one who is driving wedges.

Charles, I apologize for putting you on the spot about those figures, BTW: it was me that posted the so called wedge driving comments not Stephen but Liberty AKA Raymond.

Nuff said, I gonna go and spit out some nails now.

The bold part is where I have a problem. I agree that someone with a CHL should be able to carry just anywhere a LEO can with a few possible exceptions. I agree that most CHL holders are upstanding citizens, and when looked at as a whole are less likely to commit a crime than the balance of the population.

If you read what I have written I have never stated that LEO's are more trustworthy than CHL's. I simply can not agree that a LEO is less trustworthy as a whole, or that they are more likely to behave poorly, than some other group of citizen.