I can deal with nibbling away at it.Purplehood wrote:I agree with the take what you get for now theory...
JL
Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
I can deal with nibbling away at it.Purplehood wrote:I agree with the take what you get for now theory...
It's sad the state senate surrendered to fearmongering. MPA doesn't show up on a DL check.Charles L. Cotton wrote:BTW, the floor amendment that prevented LEO's from being notified that a person had a CHL when they check their DL status doomed the bill. That was the primary justification for removing the duty to disclose a CHL. There was no reason to penalize a CHL if they forgot, or were nervous during a traffic stop, when the officer was going to be advised anyway. Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, HB410 was not going to pass with that provision. The Senate committee had already blasted the Senate companion bill and it didn't have the 410 floor amendment.
Chas.
The point is to infringe on the rights of the good guys while increasing the privileges of criminals and politicians. But I repeat myself.CainA wrote:I don't understand the mentality of why the notification is necessary. OK, so the good guys will notify the officer and the bad guys won't, right? So what's the point?
-Cain
Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?
I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
exactly, the criminals are going to be ones I worry about on a traffic stopjlangton wrote:Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?
I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
JL
My concern is for the person who has had his CHL approved but has yet to receive his license.dac1842 wrote:Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.
I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.
Well, my opinion has always been that trust is a two-way street...jlangton wrote:Elitist law-enforcement influence. In discussions with guys at work there is one ex-sheriff's deputy here, and he's absolutely against any law that eliminates the duty to inform. His opinion is that law-enforcement officers MUST know every time there is a firearm in any vehicle, any time that there is a stop-no matter what. His opinion is that the public isn't trustworthy, and that he's at risk no matter who it is-if there's a firearm anywhere in the vehicle. We definitely do not agree on this at all. He's also of the opinion that anybody that doesn't come out and announce that there is a firearm is trying to hide something. That's the influence that we're all fighting against in passage of bills like these, and the influence on lawmakers from the elitist law-enforcement types is HUGE.stash wrote:I really for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone up there would be against this, especially with the MPA and all.
JL