TexasCHLforum.com

I am taking a Citizens Police Academy course. Every police officer that has interacted with our group has been very vocal about carrying a weapon, and their "I wouldn't go anywhere without a gun" mentality. One woman was discussing with a Sargent having to disarm when she saw signage, and he asked "why? Concealed is concealed. I certainly wouldn't arrest you".

During one class that involved police vehicle driving and building searches, toy guns were used. They queried the class before it started to make sure nobody was carrying...so there'd be no confusion between toy / not a toy. They then went out of their way to ensure us we'd be kept safe by them, noting the "crazy state of things" right now.

Every one of them is very worried about today's world, saying "it's different now, and it's not going back to the way it was".

I feel so good about the department that protects us, and I'm also very proud and appreciative of the fine men and women on our force.

I would never encourage breaking the law no matter the penalty. However, I've always given LTC holders professional courtesy during traffic stops.

During any type of force on force training or training with blue guns we are also disarmed. I've been to training teams they have gone as far to wand us with a metal detector then go through a pat down. That was at ALERRT active shooter training.

There are some grey area like our local mall with 20 public entrances but only 3 posted that concealed means concealed. Grey areas such as that are the exception IMO. I would never give someone the OK to walk past a vaild sign.

Two issues here and I'll preach them till I'm blue in the face.

1. The class c penalty for carrying past a sign, which to a lot of people seems like nothing and therefore are willing to take the chance rather than disarming.

2. The other and most important point, and the one most meaningful and potentially significant to the carrier, is the legal presumption of reasonable belief that you would otherwise be afforded but which you give away when you are involved in a shooting at a location where you are in the status of committing a crime by trespassing past a valid sign.

This could mean the difference between being exonerated at trial and being found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for manslaughter because you were not able to defend yourself against the prosecutor's charge that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was not reasonable.

That's the main Reason you always stay legal. Always.

We're not playing a game of Monopoly here. These are real rules with real consequences and real prosecutors.

tex

Which is another reason we shouldn't skip out on jury duty.

thetexan wrote:Two issues here and I'll preach them till I'm blue in the face.

1. The class c penalty for carrying past a sign, which to a lot of people seems like nothing and therefore are willing to take the chance rather than disarming.

2. The other and most important point, and the one most meaningful and potentially significant to the carrier, is the legal presumption of reasonable belief that you would otherwise be afforded but which you give away when you are involved in a shooting at a location where you are in the status of committing a crime by trespassing past a valid sign.

This could mean the difference between being exonerated at trial and being found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for manslaughter because you were not able to defend yourself against the prosecutor's charge that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was not reasonable.

That's the main Reason you always stay legal. Always.

We're not playing a game of Monopoly here. These are real rules with real consequences and real prosecutors.

tex

Umm wouldn't you having to use a weapon in defense of yourself or others - kinda indicate that it was necessary to be armed?

Our Police Academy teach Survivalism too.

KHickam wrote:

thetexan wrote:Two issues here and I'll preach them till I'm blue in the face.

1. The class c penalty for carrying past a sign, which to a lot of people seems like nothing and therefore are willing to take the chance rather than disarming.

2. The other and most important point, and the one most meaningful and potentially significant to the carrier, is the legal presumption of reasonable belief that you would otherwise be afforded but which you give away when you are involved in a shooting at a location where you are in the status of committing a crime by trespassing past a valid sign.

This could mean the difference between being exonerated at trial and being found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for manslaughter because you were not able to defend yourself against the prosecutor's charge that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was not reasonable.

That's the main Reason you always stay legal. Always.

We're not playing a game of Monopoly here. These are real rules with real consequences and real prosecutors.

tex

Umm wouldn't you having to use a weapon in defense of yourself or others - kinda indicate that it was necessary to be armed?

I think the point is that you are putting yourself at the mercy of the jury by giving up your legal presumption. This could play out a lot of different ways for different folks. My personal philosophy is that I will not ever be using a gun unless I honestly believe that the alternative is death or serious injury to myself or my family. Meaning that I won't be pulling a gun to stop someone from robbing a store, etc. So for me, the alternative of being unarmed, and needing a gun means that I or my family members will be dead or in the hospital. I would rather take a legal risk than end up in that situation.

Of course this is a moot point, since I avoid any 30.06 locations like the plague, and I have my Kel-Tec Sub 2000 with me just in case I am completely unable to avoid such a place for some odd reason.

2. The other and most important point, and the one most meaningful and potentially significant to the carrier, is the legal presumption of reasonable belief that you would otherwise be afforded but which you give away when you are involved in a shooting at a location where you are in the status of committing a crime by trespassing past a valid sign.

This could mean the difference between being exonerated at trial and being found guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison for manslaughter because you were not able to defend yourself against the prosecutor's charge that your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was not reasonable.

I don't think anyone should be breaking the law. . ., but one of the most important points I see is if you trespass, use your firearm in defense of your life, then Manslaughter beats wife grand kids, or self dying.

Make sure you don't leave your trash carts out on the wrong day if you live in Fort Worth. If you have to use your firearm in self defense you'll lose your presumption of reasonabity that you'd otherwise have if you weren't committing a class C.

EastTexasRancher wrote:I am taking a Citizens Police Academy course. Every police officer that has interacted with our group has been very vocal about carrying a weapon, and their "I wouldn't go anywhere without a gun" mentality. One woman was discussing with a Sargent having to disarm when she saw signage, and he asked "why? Concealed is concealed. I certainly wouldn't arrest you".

During one class that involved police vehicle driving and building searches, toy guns were used. They queried the class before it started to make sure nobody was carrying...so there'd be no confusion between toy / not a toy. They then went out of their way to ensure us we'd be kept safe by them, noting the "crazy state of things" right now.

Every one of them is very worried about today's world, saying "it's different now, and it's not going back to the way it was".

I feel so good about the department that protects us, and I'm also very proud and appreciative of the fine men and women on our force.

That is good to know and mirrors all of my encounters/discussions with LEO. However, while the Sargent may not arrest someone, simply for carrying, past a sign, he may not be there, and other officers might be a little less open minded.

All of the LEOs I have had a discussion with regarding LTC, were glad to have armed citizens around in case things went bad. The last discussion I had, was during my son's Eagle Scout project, the police department had stored some of the supplies in their storage room behind the office area. The project took place on a Saturday when the department was closed, so we had an officer meet us there to get the supplies. There was no signage in the lobby, but there was on the door leading to the office areas, and storage. I told the officer that I was carrying and asked him if I needed to take my gun back to the truck. He laughed and said, "I doubt you will try to shoot me over some concrete paint and roller pans." I agreed, saying "it would be very counter productive to the project." He hung around as we got started and we talked guns, LTC, shooting ranges, etc. I think that the negativity all comes from police administrators who have political agendas, and don't reflect the prevailing attitude of officers on the street.

Yeah. You would start trial with one footin the grave.

How can one argue that you found yourself in a situation where the use of deadly force was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary at a location where you where legally prohibited from be present?

Had you obeyed the law you would have never felt it immediately necessary to use a gun that you never should have had to defend yourself in a situation you never should have been in?

tex

thetexan wrote:Yeah. You would start trial with one footin the grave.

How can one argue that you found yourself in a situation where the use of deadly force was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary at a location where you where legally prohibited from be present?

Had you obeyed the law you would have never felt it immediately necessary to use a gun that you never should have had to defend yourself in a situation you never should have been in?

tex

Was about 2 years ago that a physician in a hospital defended himself from a psych patient that was trying to kill him. The doc shot and killed the patient who was armed as well. The physician was not allowed to have a gun in the hospital. The physician is still alive and well and if I remember correctly not charged. Better to end up alive and well. Does not mean that I am proposing that anyone break the law, just remembering this story.

rotor wrote:

thetexan wrote:Yeah. You would start trial with one footin the grave.

How can one argue that you found yourself in a situation where the use of deadly force was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary at a location where you where legally prohibited from be present?

Had you obeyed the law you would have never felt it immediately necessary to use a gun that you never should have had to defend yourself in a situation you never should have been in?

tex

Was about 2 years ago that a physician in a hospital defended himself from a psych patient that was trying to kill him. The doc shot and killed the patient who was armed as well. The physician was not allowed to have a gun in the hospital. The physician is still alive and well and if I remember correctly not charged. Better to end up alive and well. Does not mean that I am proposing that anyone break the law, just remembering this story.

This was in Pennsylvania which has no equivalent to our 30.06 law, but it's unlikely he would have been charged here either.

ScottDLS wrote:

rotor wrote:

thetexan wrote:Yeah. You would start trial with one footin the grave.

How can one argue that you found yourself in a situation where the use of deadly force was reasonably believed to be immediately necessary at a location where you where legally prohibited from be present?

Had you obeyed the law you would have never felt it immediately necessary to use a gun that you never should have had to defend yourself in a situation you never should have been in?

tex

Was about 2 years ago that a physician in a hospital defended himself from a psych patient that was trying to kill him. The doc shot and killed the patient who was armed as well. The physician was not allowed to have a gun in the hospital. The physician is still alive and well and if I remember correctly not charged. Better to end up alive and well. Does not mean that I am proposing that anyone break the law, just remembering this story.

This was in Pennsylvania which has no equivalent to our 30.06 law, but it's unlikely he would have been charged here either.

But they do have Punxsutawney Phil who didn't see his shadow that year so...

Jusme wrote:

EastTexasRancher wrote:I am taking a Citizens Police Academy course. Every police officer that has interacted with our group has been very vocal about carrying a weapon, and their "I wouldn't go anywhere without a gun" mentality. One woman was discussing with a Sargent having to disarm when she saw signage, and he asked "why? Concealed is concealed. I certainly wouldn't arrest you".

During one class that involved police vehicle driving and building searches, toy guns were used. They queried the class before it started to make sure nobody was carrying...so there'd be no confusion between toy / not a toy. They then went out of their way to ensure us we'd be kept safe by them, noting the "crazy state of things" right now.

Every one of them is very worried about today's world, saying "it's different now, and it's not going back to the way it was".

I feel so good about the department that protects us, and I'm also very proud and appreciative of the fine men and women on our force.

That is good to know and mirrors all of my encounters/discussions with LEO. However, while the Sargent may not arrest someone, simply for carrying, past a sign, he may not be there, and other officers might be a little less open minded.

All of the LEOs I have had a discussion with regarding LTC, were glad to have armed citizens around in case things went bad. The last discussion I had, was during my son's Eagle Scout project, the police department had stored some of the supplies in their storage room behind the office area. The project took place on a Saturday when the department was closed, so we had an officer meet us there to get the supplies. There was no signage in the lobby, but there was on the door leading to the office areas, and storage. I told the officer that I was carrying and asked him if I needed to take my gun back to the truck. He laughed and said, "I doubt you will try to shoot me over some concrete paint and roller pans." I agreed, saying "it would be very counter productive to the project." He hung around as we got started and we talked guns, LTC, shooting ranges, etc. I think that the negativity all comes from police administrators who have political agendas, and don't reflect the prevailing attitude of officers on the street.

I got stopped around January for a "tail light" (turns out it really was out) but I think he was fishing, it was late, my neck hurt and I had my head back against the headrest. In truth I probably looked stoned driving by the guy.

It was a rare time when I had forgotten my weapon and as I handed him my CHL, he asked if I had it on me. When I told him no he dressed me down for not having it all the time. Then we had a casual conversation about OC, he was glad to see it for the same reason a lot of us were, no questioning whether the display was intentional or not because it didn't matter. That stop turned into a 45 minute discussion on tactics, favorite weapons, agreements on the futility of 30.06 postings, etc. I was REALLY tired and sore by the time I got home, but it was worth it.