Police not happy about relazation of TX CHL law

[dac1842]

It causes me some concern on the mental state of some of our fellow CHL holders when I see comments regarding the police and folks saying that they will not stop and and assist if they see one in trouble, or referring to them as the the gestapo, referring to them as the enemy.

1- If anyone were to go past anybody, police or not that is in trouble and does not stop to assist, may you burn in Hades. The backbone of our country is the willingness to help those in need. To make a statement that if I see a cop in trouble I am just going to mind my own business and keep going, or refer to them as the enemy just completely blows me away.
The very ones that make that kind of statement are the ones that will scream the loudest if an officer just minds his own business and drives by them in a moment of distress.
To see those comments on a board like this is very disconcerting. Take a moment an think about what our lives would be like if it was not for our Law Enforcment community. Anyone that believes that the Second Amendment will protect us and keep our community from becoming lawless without the men and women on the streets in patrol cars is completely and uttlerly insane.

2-I worked the streets for 15 years. The officer that stops a person has the right to know if that person is armed. That right is not contained in any written document, it is the safety and security of the officer that supercedes anything else. Granted the crook on the street is not going to notify, but the person that does notify the officer that he or she is legally carrying a weapon helps his/her own cause. That officer now realizes he is probably dealing with someone who is law abiding, is not a threat to him or his safety and actually cares enough to mention it.

3- The State of Texas gives us the privilege that I know most here feel is a right, to carry a concealed weapon. I am not here to argue the merits or constitutionality of our right to carry. We MUST comply with laws regardless of if we agree with them or not. Along with any right we have comes responsibility. The right to carry comes with it the responsibility to be conciencious of how we exercise that right. IMHO, it is an obligation for us to notify the officer we have a weapon. Even though the crooks wont do it, responsibility is what separates us from the crooks.
The right to free speech does not carry with it the right to offend. We can say what we want, but being respectful, not politcially correct, respectful, is the responsibility of that right.

Even being an ex cop I have had my fair share of less than ideal dealings with the police. I do not judge all police by the actions of a very very few. I hope that you that have ill will towards the police will not judge all by the actions of a few.

Even though I do not agree with the statements of i will not stop and assist an officer in trouble, or referring to them as the gestapo or the enemy. I will defend to the death, your right to say it.

[lonewolf]

To dac1842:

[dicion]

I disagree. If a department or union is anti CHL then their members don't deserve our support, our help, or our respect. They want to create an us-vs-them division, then let them reap what they sow.

Saying that an entire department or union is anti-CHL because their spokesman says something to that effect, is like saying that All Americans Want Public Health care.... because Obama says it, and he's our spokesman to the world, right?

[Liberty]

It causes me some concern on the mental state of some of our fellow CHL holders when I see comments regarding the police and folks saying that they will not stop and and assist if they see one in trouble, or referring to them as the the gestapo, referring to them as the enemy.

1- If anyone were to go past anybody, police or not that is in trouble and does not stop to assist, may you burn in Hades. The backbone of our country is the willingness to help those in need. To make a statement that if I see a cop in trouble I am just going to mind my own business and keep going, or refer to them as the enemy just completely blows me away.
The very ones that make that kind of statement are the ones that will Gary BlankinshipGary Blankinshipscream the loudest if an officer just minds his own business and drives by them in a moment of distress.
To see those comments on a board like this is very disconcerting. Take a moment an think about what our lives would be like if it was not for our Law Enforcment community. Anyone that believes that the Second Amendment will protect us and keep our community from becoming lawless without the men and women on the streets in patrol cars is completely and utterly insane.
2-I worked the streets for 15 years. The officer that stops a person has the right to know if that person is armed. That right is not contained in any written document, it is the safety and security of the officer that supercedes anything else. Granted the crook on the street is not going to notify, but the person that does notify the officer that he or she is legally carrying a weapon helps his/her own cause. That officer now realizes he is probably dealing with someone who is law abiding, is not a threat to him or his safety and actually cares enough to mention it.

3- The State of Texas gives us the privilege that I know most here feel Gary Blankinshipis a right, to carry a concealed weapon. I am not here to argue the merits or constitutionality of our right to carry. We MUST comply with laws regardless of if we agree with them or not. Along with any right we have comes responsibility. The right to carry comes with it the responsibility to be conciencious of how we exercise that right. IMHO, it is an obligation for us to notify the officer we have a weapon. Even though the crooks wont do it, responsibility is what separates us from the crooks.
The right to free speech does not carry with it the right to offend. We can say what we want, but being respectful, not politcially correct, respectful, is the responsibility of that right.

Even being an ex cop I have had my fair share of less than ideal dealings with the police. I do not judge all police by the actions of a very very few. I hope that you that have ill will towards the police will not judge all by the actions of a few.

Even though I do not agree with the statements of i will not stop and assist an officer in trouble, or referring to them as the gestapo or the enemy. I will defend to the death, your right to say it.

Could be a lot of us are justifiably angry and need a little venting.

Used to be police officers were the good guys.

In my time I have seen them beat black people and sweep them off their feet for the sole reason they wanted to be treated like real citizens. Used to be that LEOS worked a beat and stopped and talked to the citizens. Today it seems like the cops are right there the minute we go 10 miles over the speed limit, but can take more than an hour to respond to a broken in house. We use to believe that our government was here to protect us from the evil of the world. Today our government is the evil we that we truly fear.. We have seen Feds shoot down a whole family in Ruby Ridge and burn out an entire community. Our war on drugs fought by LEOS is truly a war on 30% of our nations citizens. People today are on the verge of complete revolt, yet we wonder why the LEO community isn't so fully supported? How can we be happy with the enforcers of our government when we are so POed at the government itself. To many of us its just not so clear who is the good guys and who is the bad guys anymore.

Many CHL holders tend to be great believers of freedom. They believe in our constitution, and they believe that government should be limited, yet it keeps growing in power and numbers. We believe that police who drive around look for seat belt violators are the enemy of freedom. We want to be responsible for our selves. Not the police state taking over every aspect of our lives.

So when we see the LEOs on TV and the media speaking out against us CHL holders or the chiefs praising the new seatbelt crackdowns. We never seem to hear anything on the news or in the papers from police speaking up for more freedom of the people. Law enforcement agencies and the unions fought us tooth and nail to get CHL laws, They paid big money to lobby to keep our citizens unarmed. We hear the chiefs brag about the big drug bust on the news, but where are the police when they bust the cancer patient for having a plant in his back yard, and the patient claims that its the only way he can hold his food down... I never see the departments speaking up for more CHL rights, or even sticking up for our constitution. Most time when I see the chiefs or department heads on the evening news they talk about our constitution as though it is an obstacle to be worked around.

Now this isn't to say that freedom loving folks don't apreciate the the police do, and the risk that they take to perform their job, but . when we have police spokesman speaking up against us like in the original post we get angry and want to strike back. Can anyone blame us for being an. gry? We CHL holders have a lot of enemies who want to take away our rights and freedom. (BTW: I thought it was a RIGHT to bear arms] We have proven that despite the legal traps our government has laid out for us we have lead pretty clean lives and proven that we are capable of making the right decisions. Its a little ironic that a Police spokesman can complain to the press about us not being able to be prosecuted while a. nother complains about our lack of willingness to use our weapons to he. lp the same officer.

I wonder when this Union hack spoke if he even considered how his words could cost him and the officers he represent in support. I wonder how many officers complained to this guy about his alignment with the disarmers? One can get mad at CHLers who are rightfully POed, but the guy the LEOs should really be angry with is the guy who started this war of words Gary Blankinship. If the LEOs he supposedly represents don't speak out and vote against him, then maybe the LEO deserves a little of our anger and loss of support. The question we all might ask, is this LEO for me or my enemy.

[casingpoint]

f anyone were to go past anybody, police or not that is in trouble and does not stop to assist, may you burn in Hades. The backbone of our country is the willingness to help those in need.

The backbone of America is the Constitution with it's Bill of Rights. Until I get the 38 Special back illegally seized by police in New Jersey in 1987 and never returned, I won't be assisting any cops in trouble.

[boomerang]

The very ones that make that kind of statement are the ones that will scream the loudest if an officer just minds his own business and drives by them in a moment of distress.

Is there any chance you drive by your garbage man's house without collecting his trash and taking it to the dump?

If so, does that invalidate your right to complain if the garbage truck drives by your house and ignores your trash?

[boomerang]

Saying that an entire department or union is anti-CHL because their spokesman says something to that effect, is like saying that All Americans Want Public Health care.... because Obama says it, and he's our spokesman to the world, right?

If there were no protests against the Obama plan for socialist medicine...

If Joe Wilson didn't say "You Lie!" during an Obama speech for socialist medicine...

If nobody got their finger bit off arguing with a Move On supporter of socialist medicine...

You might have a point.

[03Lightningrocks]

In my time I have seen them beat black people and sweep them off their feet for the sole reason they wanted to be treated like real citizens. Used to be that LEOS worked a beat and stopped and talked to the citizens. Today it seems like the cops are right there the minute we go 10 miles over the speed limit, but can take more than an hour to respond to a broken in house. We use to believe that our government was here to protect us from the evil of the world. Today our government is the evil we that we truly fear.. We have seen Feds shoot down a whole family in Ruby Ridge and burn out an entire community. Our war on drugs fought by LEOS is truly a war on 30% of our nations citizens. People today are on the verge of complete revolt, yet we wonder why the LEO community isn't so fully supported? How can we be happy with the enforcers of our government when we are so POed at the government itself. To many of us its just not so clear who is the good guys and who is the bad guys anymore.

Many CHL holders tend to be great believers of freedom. They believe in our constitution, and they believe that government should be limited, yet it keeps growing in power and numbers. We believe that police who drive around look for seat belt violators are the enemy of freedom. We want to be responsible for our selves. Not the police state taking over every aspect of our lives.

So when we see the LEOs on TV and the media speaking out against us CHL holders or the chiefs praising the new seatbelt crackdowns. We never seem to hear anything on the news or in the papers from police speaking up for more freedom of the people. Law enforcement agencies and the unions fought us tooth and nail to get CHL laws, They paid big money to lobby to keep our citizens unarmed. We hear the chiefs brag about the big drug bust on the news, but where are the police when they bust the cancer patient for having a plant in his back yard, and the patient claims that its the only way he can hold his food down... I never see the departments speaking up for more CHL rights, or even sticking up for our constitution. Most time when I see the chiefs or department heads on the evening news they talk about our constitution as though it is an obstacle to be worked around.

Now this isn't to say that freedom loving folks don't apreciate the the police do, and the risk that they take to perform their job, but . when we have police spokesman speaking up against us like in the original post we get angry and want to strike back. Can anyone blame us for being an. gry? We CHL holders have a lot of enemies who want to take away our rights and freedom. (BTW: I thought it was a RIGHT to bear arms] We have proven that despite the legal traps our government has laid out for us we have lead pretty clean lives and proven that we are capable of making the right decisions. Its a little ironic that a Police spokesman can complain to the press about us not being able to be prosecuted while a. nother complains about our lack of willingness to use our weapons to he. lp the same officer.

I wonder when this Union hack spoke if he even considered how his words could cost him and the officers he represent in support. I wonder how many officers complained to this guy about his alignment with the disarmers? One can get mad at CHLers who are rightfully POed, but the guy the LEOs should really be angry with is the guy who started this war of words Gary Blankinship. If the LEOs he supposedly represents don't speak out and vote against him, then maybe the LEO deserves a little of our anger and loss of support. The question we all might ask, is this LEO for me or my enemy.

[dac1842]

The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons. Their intent on carryng them on a daily basis is silent. Though back in their day that was common place due primarily to lack of enforcement. Over the years some courts have held that the right to carry is contained within the Second Amendment and hence you have states that have open carry per their respective legistaures. The open carry has not won much legislative support in Texas. Right wrong or indifferent in Texas no one questions the right to own a weapon. The state grants certain individuals who meet the criteria the privilege to carry a weapon concealed. Some on here think that is a right not privilege. Until the State grants it as a right, it is a privilege, just like driving.

To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge. The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them. Like any other profession 98 percent of them are hard working, tax paying Americans like you and I.

I dont know the circumstances of why one's weapon was seized in 1987 in New Jersey. I dont have a clue as to what the law was in New Jersey at the time on carry a weapon. I know in Texas in 1987 if you carried a weapon in your car or on your person, unless you met one of the exceptions listed in the penal code, you went to jail and your weapon was confiscated and you never saw it again if convicted of Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon. I know this, because back then I put a few folks in jail for it. Usually there was another charge that accompanied it since you would not normally see the weapon until the violator was detained for something else.

Today in Texas that has all changed. It is legal, even without a CHL to carry in your car. If for some reason the police confiscate your weapon, it is run through firearms testing at the Medical Examiners Office, then if your weapon has not been used in the commission of a crime, or is evidence they return it. I know this because my oldest son just went throug this as a result of being the victiim of a cowardly assault at a Sports Bar on FM 1960 in Atascocita.

I have numerous friends who are still active in law enforcement. The vast majority of them are very supportive of the CHL laws. Do not judge the community as a whole based on the comments of a Union President. Talk to the officer on the street. Most of them are very approchable and are happy to engage citizens in a manner that is not confrontational for either one.

To say that you would not stop to assist an officer who was in trouble is troubling. You have the right to say it, but if that is your feelings, then why should any citizen stop to help you if you are in trouble?

There are many on this board that by the comments they have posted on this thread and others that seem to think that since they have a CHL they should be exempt from tickets, treated with more respect and are equal in power to the police. The only thing you are exempt from is being arrested for UCW as long as you have it properly concealed, you will get the respect you show, and we as CHL holders are no where close to being the equal to a police officer.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

[Liberty]

The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons. Their intent on carryng them on a daily basis is silent. Though back in their day that was common place due primarily to lack of enforcement. Over the years some courts have held that the right to carry is contained within the Second Amendment and hence you have states that have open carry per their respective legistaures. The open carry has not won much legislative support in Texas. Right wrong or indifferent in Texas no one questions the right to own a weapon. The state grants certain individuals who meet the criteria the privilege to carry a weapon concealed. Some on here think that is a right not privilege. Until the State grants it as a right, it is a privilege, just like driving.

The word bear is not about ownership its actually about carry. see: http://define.com/bear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The courts are wrong they have rewritten the law to be what they want it to be rather than as as it was written. The contitution is clear.. The reasoning and judgements are whats rather muddy.

To support or not support your local law enforcement is your right as well. I for one, have a high degree of respect and admiration for those that chose to wear the badge. The police dont make the laws. The simply enforce the ones that our legislature passes and our governor signs into law. They have the duty to enforce them. Like any other profession 98 percent of them are hard working, tax paying Americans like you and I.

At a certain point when an agency keeps resisting us. they change from being our allies to being our enemys. ITs Kind of a French thing.


The problem is the membership keeps putting the same people in. Where are the voices in the department speaking against them.

To say that you would not stop to assist an officer who was in trouble is troubling. You have the right to say it, but if that is your feelings, then why should any citizen stop to help you if you are in trouble?

Lots of things go through our mind when we see certain situations. What is the risk? how badly does that officer need our help, Do I know that oficer? Is he likely a good guy or bad guy. Is he ATF? DEA? or a department I respect?
...

There are many on this board that by the comments they have posted on this thread and others that seem to think that since they have a CHL they should be exempt from tickets, treated with more respect and are equal in power to the police. The only thing you are exempt from is being arrested for UCW as long as you have it properly concealed, you will get the respect you show, and we as CHL holders are no where close to being the equal to a police officer.

If you cannot support your local police, then the next time you are in trouble call your local Crips, Bloods, M13, or Aryan Brotherhood for help.

[/quote]
Are we not already in trouble when the Departments and their Representatives march up to Austin every 2 years and fight the honest good citizen on their rights to protect themselves. If the Agencies would stop campaigning for things like ticketing back seat drivers and working against CHLers they would improve relationships tremendously... How about if they just keep their chiefs and union Reps at home during the legislative session. How about a union representative speak about CHLers with a modicum of respect? How about a chief stating publicly he won't charge cancer patients with small amounts of drugs. How about Union speaking out against ticketing folks in the back seats? Are the departments about oppression or freedom..
I believe we as CHL holders as taxpayers are the superiors of the LEOs aren't we?

[android]

The US Constitution gave us the right to bear arms. The intent of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the right to own weapons.

I know this, because back then I put a few folks in jail for it. Usually there was another charge that accompanied it since you would not normally see the weapon until the violator was detained for something else.

Today in Texas that has all changed. It is legal, even without a CHL to carry in your car.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. I mean it as a serious question about what you believed then vs. how you feel now.

Assuming you didn't do anything else illegal with it, why was carrying a weapon in 1987 wrong? Although legal and illegal can change at the whim of some idiots in Austin, right and wrong don't change. So admit that as a police officer you put people in jail for something that is now OK. If it is now OK, then it must have always been OK, just illegal. Sort the opposite of like slavery, right? It was always wrong, but used to be legal. So you think as a cop, just doing your job, that it is OK to support and enforce morally wrong laws. Wow, that's the same argument torturers and war criminals use.

Deep in your heart, didn't you know that you were violating the 2nd amendment in the name of doing your job?

[frazzled]

It causes me some concern on the mental state of some of our fellow CHL holders when I see comments regarding the police and folks saying that they will not stop and and assist if they see one in trouble, or referring to them as the the gestapo, referring to them as the enemy.

1- If anyone were to go past anybody, police or not that is in trouble and does not stop to assist, may you burn in Hades. The backbone of our country is the willingness to help those in need. To make a statement that if I see a cop in trouble I am just going to mind my own business and keep going, or refer to them as the enemy just completely blows me away.
The very ones that make that kind of statement are the ones that will scream the loudest if an officer just minds his own business and drives by them in a moment of distress.

[frazzled]

I disagree. If a department or union is anti CHL then their members don't deserve our support, our help, or our respect. They want to create an us-vs-them division, then let them reap what they sow.

Saying that an entire department or union is anti-CHL because their spokesman says something to that effect, is like saying that All Americans Want Public Health care.... because Obama says it, and he's our spokesman to the world, right?

Very true.

[dac1842]

Android,
No offense taken sir. Very good and legitimate questions.
Prior to CHL laws being in place it was illegal in Texas to possess a firearm outside of your home unless you were
1- Traveling- At the time this meant crossing at least 3 county lines and being gone overnight.
2- Had in your possession items of high value. This was seen by the courts as over $1000 in cash or 10,000 in other items such as diamonds.
3- Were a peace officer
4- Were a commissioned security guard traveling directly to or from your place of employment.

There may have been other exceptions but I cannot recall them at this time.

Most officers depending on the time of day, place, who was carrying and attitude of the suspect would not take exception. The times I charged someone with that they were usually DWI, resisted arrest on another charge or displaying the weapon in a threatening manner. I cant recall any time I ever charged someone with UCW as a stand alone charge.

For instance I stopped nurses or others who worked shift work, were coming home at 2 and 3 am and if they were cooperative the fact they had a weapon was not ever a big deal.

[Keith B]

Android,
No offense taken sir. Very good and legitimate questions.
Prior to CHL laws being in place it was illegal in Texas to possess a firearm outside of your home unless you were
1- Traveling- At the time this meant crossing at least 3 county lines and being gone overnight.
2- Had in your possession items of high value. This was seen by the courts as over $1000 in cash or 10,000 in other items such as diamonds.
3- Were a peace officer
4- Were a commissioned security guard traveling directly to or from your place of employment.

There may have been other exceptions but I cannot recall them at this time.

Most officers depending on the time of day, place, who was carrying and attitude of the suspect would not take exception. The times I charged someone with that they were usually DWI, resisted arrest on another charge or displaying the weapon in a threatening manner. I cant recall any time I ever charged someone with UCW as a stand alone charge.

For instance I stopped nurses or others who worked shift work, were coming home at 2 and 3 am and if they were cooperative the fact they had a weapon was not ever a big deal.

Clarification. You could not have a LOADED HANDGUN in your vehicle within reach (had to be locked up in the trunk or a locked box). You could have one outside your house on your own property. You could also have one while shooting at the range (or coming and going to the range) or hunting with the handgun.