TexasCHLforum.com

I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

We'll have to agree to disagree in this instance, TAM. The concept you expressed has merit, but I feel it does not apply here. The OP is not kicking or being confrontational. Rather, he is asking for information in a polite and respectful manner. Neither is this dog sleeping.

I have read reports of several presentations of the type the OP requests. I have seen some on line. I view this interaction as a good thing.

For my part, I'm engaging my city's police department. I'm attending the Elgin PD Citizens' Police Academy (CPA). Tonight, the Assistant Chief's presentation will be about traffic stops and building search (http://www.elgintx.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=324). I'll be asking about how best to interact with LE while carrying openly, concealed, and under MPA.

After graduation, I'll be a member of the alumni association, supporting the PD and the CPA. Being proactive and involved generally works better for me.

Although well intended, I hope your letter doesn't awaken 'sleeping dogs'. If Texas folk do like the folk we've seen in other OC states, we won't see very much OC in the urban areas.

Oldgringo wrote:Although well intended, I hope your letter doesn't awaken 'sleeping dogs'. If Texas folk do like the folk we've seen in other OC states, we won't see very much OC in the urban areas.

{Oops! I forgot to send this. }

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

What exactly is this "facilitated conversation" going to accomplish? Who is going to lead it, Art Acevedo (our beloved anti-gun police chief here in Austin)? That's not going to accomplish anything and I don't want to provide him with any kind of forum to rail against OC any more than he already does. Plus, do you not think the anti's will show up in force and make a scene? What if this conversation sways businesses that don't already do so to post 30.07/30.06 signs?

Sorry, I'm sure you mean well but I can't see any point in this or anything good coming out of it. It's the law, the police should follow the law. Period, end of discussion.

Scott Farkus wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

What exactly is this "facilitated conversation" going to accomplish? Who is going to lead it, Art Acevedo (our beloved anti-gun police chief here in Austin)? That's not going to accomplish anything and I don't want to provide him with any kind of forum to rail against OC any more than he already does. Plus, do you not think the anti's will show up in force and make a scene? What if this conversation sways businesses that don't already do so to post 30.07/30.06 signs?

Sorry, I'm sure you mean well but I can't see any point in this or anything good coming out of it. It's the law, the police should follow the law. Period, end of discussion.

Perhaps it could be an opportunity to get things out on record? You're only paranoid if they aren't out to get you. Having that discussion, asking the pointed questions, getting their answer out in public could prove beneficial when they then carry out their intent. Isn't Austin known for not liking the light of day on those kind of issues?

Glockster wrote:Perhaps it could be an opportunity to get things out on record? You're only paranoid if they aren't out to get you. Having that discussion, asking the pointed questions, getting their answer out in public could prove beneficial when they then carry out their intent. Isn't Austin known for not liking the light of day on those kind of issues?

I appreciate your comments, but frankly, I'm about done trying to have any kind of dialogue with the anti-gun crowd, and with the broader left in general for that matter. The time for discussion was in the spring when this thing was being debated in the Legislature. They lost, we won, now follow the law.

Not to get political, but things like this and the gnashing of teeth by the college professors over campus carry have got me a bit steamed this morning. Did anybody on the left ever propose facilitating a conversation on how county clerks opposed to gay marriage might avoid the recent Supreme Court decision requiring all states to recognize it? No, they said "you lost, we won now follow the law or go to jail. Period, end of discussion". And in that case and others like it, the law was decided on dubious grounds by an unelected judiciary imposing its own worldview on things, not through an honest and transparent legislative process like our side went through to get OC done (even though arguably we shouldn't have even had to do that because we actually have a real amendment backing us up, but I digress).

Oh well, sorry for the rant. Acevedo et.al. are going to do what Acevedo et. al. are going to do, and giving him/them another opportunity to get on a soapbox won't help anything. He simply needs to be told to follow the law.

Also, I think they need to make it clear that you do still need a license for open carry. I have heard multiple people say 'oh I was going to get my CHL, but now that open carry has passed I don't have to'

I think this really comes down to a culture discussion. If the culture of your area is one of anti-gun, blood in the streets hysteria, it's likely that a public forum won't do much except propogate that sentiment and raise emotions when other viewpoints are introduced.

However, if your area has a culture of acceptance to gun rights and you have civic leaders that can take a common sense approach to the new law, it will likely be very helpful to tell the public exactly what will be the LEO reaction to MWAG calls, response, etc.

Bottom line is you're not likely to change any minds in a forum like this, simply get the thoughts of your civic leaders. If I'm in Austin or any metro area where they have made their thoughts loud and clear, I wouldn't see any benefit. However if you're in a location where you don't know your civic leaders stance it may be beneficial to try and set up a discussion.

oljames3 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

We'll have to agree to disagree in this instance, TAM. The concept you expressed has merit, but I feel it does not apply here. The OP is not kicking or being confrontational. Rather, he is asking for information in a polite and respectful manner. Neither is this dog sleeping.

I have read reports of several presentations of the type the OP requests. I have seen some on line. I view this interaction as a good thing.

For my part, I'm engaging my city's police department. I'm attending the Elgin PD Citizens' Police Academy (CPA). Tonight, the Assistant Chief's presentation will be about traffic stops and building search (http://www.elgintx.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=324). I'll be asking about how best to interact with LE while carrying openly, concealed, and under MPA.

After graduation, I'll be a member of the alumni association, supporting the PD and the CPA. Being proactive and involved generally works better for me.

James, I understand your point, and in most things I would agree with it. Perhaps my opinion is colored by my experience with Grapevine, where I live. And let me state right up front that, as a local business owner, what follows is NOT an anti-capitalist rant; it is just a statement of how it is in Grapevine, and why.

I know that at the level of the street cop, GVPD officers tend to be pretty libertarian and favor 2nd Amendment rights....at least the ones I have interacted with appear to be that way. But at the level of GVPD command, particularly the chief (whom I know), and at the level of city gov't, the attitude is "whatever business wants, business gets, and the heck with your rights", and they will bend/stretch the meaning of the law to that end. For instance, the Main Street Fest and Grapefest, which are public events hosted by the city in which the entire length of Main St through the business district is closed to vehicle traffic and used for vendor booths and other displays, were still being posted 30.06 AFTER the recent passage of SB 273 (cities may not inappropriately post 30.06 and creates a vehicle for citizen protest of bad postings). Similarly, it was GVPD's written policy to enforce the old non-compliant 30.06 signs which used to exist at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Etc., etc. Post SB 273, the gunshows at the city-owned convention center continue to be posted 30.06 and enforced. The GVPD chief serves very much at the pleasure of Mayor William D. Tate, who was first elected to City Council 1972, was elected Mayor from 1973-1985, and from 1988 to the present, and whose current term expires in 2018. Think about that..... by the time his current term expires, our mayor will have been in office for 42 years. He rules this city like a king..... and I personally know of instances where his family members have used his clout to their favor. If ever there was an argument for term limits, our mayor is a shining example. And it's not so much that he has done a terrible job of it....he hasn't.....it's that whenever someone controls an office for that long, they will tend to accrue more power to that office than was originally intended for it, and that is not healthy. In Grapevine's case, that means a mayor who forgets who voted for him because he regards his true constituency to be local businesses.

According to THIS ARTICLE, the average length of service for a member of the GV city council is TWO DECADES!! Now, let me say that I know some of these people, and I count two of them as friends. But over 40 years as a mayor, and 20 years or more as a city councilman is way. too. long. I know these people because of the years I spent as a member of the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce, and as a local business owner. Everything that happens here by way of public policy happens for the benefit of business first, and everyone else after. Now, in some ways, I'd say that's great. We are a reasonably affluent town in part because of locally based businesses, which include some very large corporations (Game Stop, for example). If we enjoy clean and safe streets and courteous public servants, it is in large part because that's the way businesses, whose ample taxes support the quality of life here, want it to be. Now, clean and safe streets are just two of the benefits of living in Grapevine, and I DO like it here. But the downside is that whenever the collective will of individual residents bumps up against the collective will of local businesses, the individuals lose. They lose because its about customer retention, with the businesses being the city's customers. The city wants those businesses which are here to remain, and it wants to attract new ones.

Under most circumstances, that would all be fine. But..... if that means that raising the question with local government will lead to an almost reflexive enforcement of law the way businesses want it enforced, while giving a lower priority to the way residents want it enforced, then I would call that a sleeping dog I'd rather let lie.

And that's my long-winded explanation for why I said what I said.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

oljames3 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know that your handle says you like to teach, but I believe that it is almost always better to let sleeping dogs lie rather than giving them a swift kick......particularly when those dogs have gummint titles.

We'll have to agree to disagree in this instance, TAM. The concept you expressed has merit, but I feel it does not apply here. The OP is not kicking or being confrontational. Rather, he is asking for information in a polite and respectful manner. Neither is this dog sleeping.

I have read reports of several presentations of the type the OP requests. I have seen some on line. I view this interaction as a good thing.

For my part, I'm engaging my city's police department. I'm attending the Elgin PD Citizens' Police Academy (CPA). Tonight, the Assistant Chief's presentation will be about traffic stops and building search (http://www.elgintx.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=324). I'll be asking about how best to interact with LE while carrying openly, concealed, and under MPA.

After graduation, I'll be a member of the alumni association, supporting the PD and the CPA. Being proactive and involved generally works better for me.

James, I understand your point, and in most things I would agree with it. Perhaps my opinion is colored by my experience with Grapevine, where I live. And let me state right up front that, as a local business owner, what follows is NOT an anti-capitalist rant; it is just a statement of how it is in Grapevine, and why.

I know that at the level of the street cop, GVPD officers tend to be pretty libertarian and favor 2nd Amendment rights....at least the ones I have interacted with appear to be that way. But at the level of GVPD command, particularly the chief (whom I know), and at the level of city gov't, the attitude is "whatever business wants, business gets, and the heck with your rights", and they will bend/stretch the meaning of the law to that end. For instance, the Main Street Fest and Grapefest, which are public events hosted by the city in which the entire length of Main St through the business district is closed to vehicle traffic and used for vendor booths and other displays, were still being posted 30.06 AFTER the recent passage of SB 273 (cities may not inappropriately post 30.06 and creates a vehicle for citizen protest of bad postings). Similarly, it was GVPD's written policy to enforce the old non-compliant 30.06 signs which used to exist at the Grapevine Mills Mall. Etc., etc. Post SB 273, the gunshows at the city-owned convention center continue to be posted 30.06 and enforced. The GVPD chief serves very much at the pleasure of Mayor William D. Tate, who was first elected to City Council 1972, was elected Mayor from 1973-1985, and from 1988 to the present, and whose current term expires in 2018. Think about that..... by the time his current term expires, our mayor will have been in office for 42 years. He rules this city like a king..... and I personally know of instances where his family members have used his clout to their favor. If ever there was an argument for term limits, our mayor is a shining example. And it's not so much that he has done a terrible job of it....he hasn't.....it's that whenever someone controls an office for that long, they will tend to accrue more power to that office than was originally intended for it, and that is not healthy. In Grapevine's case, that means a mayor who forgets who voted for him because he regards his true constituency to be local businesses.

According to THIS ARTICLE, the average length of service for a member of the GV city council is TWO DECADES!! Now, let me say that I know some of these people, and I count two of them as friends. But over 40 years as a mayor, and 20 years or more as a city councilman is way. too. long. I know these people because of the years I spent as a member of the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce, and as a local business owner. Everything that happens here by way of public policy happens for the benefit of business first, and everyone else after. Now, in some ways, I'd say that's great. We are a reasonably affluent town in part because of locally based businesses, which include some very large corporations (Game Stop, for example). If we enjoy clean and safe streets and courteous public servants, it is in large part because that's the way businesses, whose ample taxes support the quality of life here, want it to be. Now, clean and safe streets are just two of the benefits of living in Grapevine, and I DO like it here. But the downside is that whenever the collective will of individual residents bumps up against the collective will of local businesses, the individuals lose. They lose because its about customer retention, with the businesses being the city's customers. The city wants those businesses which are here to remain, and it wants to attract new ones.

Under most circumstances, that would all be fine. But..... if that means that raising the question with local government will lead to an almost reflexive enforcement of law the way businesses want it enforced, while giving a lower priority to the way residents want it enforced, then I would call that a sleeping dog I'd rather let lie.

And that's my long-winded explanation for why I said what I said.

If you don't mind me asking -- and I'm asking a real question, motivated by nothing but curiosity -- but why do you stay there?

How about nobody open carries for the first two weeks in January. Then all of the hype about the problems it's going to create will go away. The media will go on to more or less important things. Actually from what I've read on the forums is most don't plan on OC anyway but feel it's nice to have the option along with less concern about printing and accidental showings. We could make it hard for the trouble making media to even find someone open carrying for the first couple of weeks. You know they are going to be out in force on day one. Just my thoughts.