TexasCHLforum.com

Shortest news article I've ever seen.
I love "reasonably believes". So clear!

This PSA is brought to you by activists' imprudent behavior. When the police stop you, of course they can disarm you if they think it is necessary. The only folks who find that thought objectionable are those who suspect that the police are out to harm them and the activists who think it is a great idea to alarm people because doing so will "bring them around". It must have been an exceedingly slow news day in Odessa.

I have been carrying since I turned 21 in 2004. I have had probably 25-30 interactions with LE in that same time frame, Some traffic stops, witness to 5-6 crashes and a witness to a couple of crimes. The worst that I have ever got was one officer ask me "What do you have and where?" I told him, and he said "Keep yours where it is and I will do the same." I replied "Deal".

Keep in mind, I was a "young punk" during this time too. Acting like a civilized human being, using "Sir" and "Ma'am" helps a lot too. If you are acting crazy or being confrontational, expect to be treated a such.

To Odessa Police who apparently just discovered that bit of information. News Flash! The earth is not flat!

locke_n_load wrote:Shortest news article I've ever seen.
I love "reasonably believes". So clear!

No kidding! I think the reporter was just trying to fill up a blank space in the news script. If he would have quoted GC 411.207 he would have filled up more space.

My only concern about this is when you couple it with the very real cases of legal ignorance on the part of some LEO's. We can disagree about the percentage of LEO's who do not know the laws they are enforcing, but some on this forum think that there is widespread ignorance of 30.06 and 30.07, for example. Just look at the number of people who openly theorize about "taking a ride" for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

Most every action starts out being legal unless there is a law against it, so logic might dictate that if I am unaware of a law against something then I should assume it is legal. Alot of LEO's apparently do not operate this way, and I fear that this, coupled with the right to disarm, could lead to abuse.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:My only concern about this is when you couple it with the very real cases of legal ignorance on the part of some LEO's. We can disagree about the percentage of LEO's who do not know the laws they are enforcing, but some on this forum think that there is widespread ignorance of 30.06 and 30.07, for example. Just look at the number of people who openly theorize about "taking a ride" for carrying past a non-compliant sign.

Most every action starts out being legal unless there is a law against it, so logic might dictate that if I am unaware of a law against something then I should assume it is legal. Alot of LEO's apparently do not operate this way, and I fear that this, coupled with the right to disarm, could lead to abuse.

I don't see it as a problem, this issue was covered in my CHL class and it was made clear that, yes the police can disarm you as a matter of safety, depending on the circumstances. I have had several interactions with police and have displayed my CHL as a matter of course. The only questions I have received were whether or not I was carrying at the time, and where the gun was located. I understand as a former LEO, that there may be times when disarming a licensed carrier may be the prudent thing to to, such as domestic disturbances, or other potentially violent encounters, but I have heard of only few cases where a carrier was disarmed. The issue that the police can disarm you is not new, and most police officers are comfortable around armed LTC holders and will not take steps to disarm unless it is clear that there is just cause.JMHO

In the past, I am not sure how well versed LEOs were on the CHL laws. I think the LE community has become more pro-active on education of the LTC laws in recent months due to the new open carry laws.

Soccerdad1995's concerns are real.

I'll mention again the recent liquor store / LEO security and his lack of LTC knowledge coupled with his wrong actions. A fine mess for LE.

Feeling a sense of peace that LEO's are finally as knowledgeable as they need be when it comes to civilians carrying is more than a bit suspect and yes, I'm a supporter of LE, but let's be realistic: There's a number of LEO's who's training is suspect in regard to LTCers. We who obey the law fear these folks and either their poor training or their their disregard of it...

Sadly, there's some chuckle-heads out there with badges, guns, and more than a little ignorance when it comes LTC carriers.

Abraham wrote:Soccerdad1995's concerns are real.

I'll mention again the recent liquor store / LEO security and his lack of LTC knowledge coupled with his wrong actions. A fine mess for LE.

Feeling a sense of peace that LEO's are finally as knowledgeable as they need be when it comes to civilians carrying is more than a bit suspect and yes, I'm a supporter of LE, but let's be realistic: There's a number of LEO's who's training is suspect in regard to LTCers. We who obey the law fear these folks and either their poor training or their their disregard of it...

Sadly, there's some chuckle-heads out there with badges, guns, and more than a little ignorance when it comes LTC carriers.

Ironically, that was one of the cases I was thinking about. Although in that case, arguably the LEO violated existing law as well in a couple respects. Refusing to return the weapon to its owner was one of these (the LEO insisted on giving it to an unverified 3rd party). His method of disarming the LTC carrier was another. Handling the weapon in a dangerous and negligent manner was a third (sweeping the third party with the muzzle).

I would be more OK with this disarmament power if there were repercussions to LEO's who abused their power, by say disarming someone who is not even suspected of breaking any law, and is also completely calm and relaxed. Like the referenced instance, I'm thinking of someone OC'ing in a location that has no valid 30.7 signage, for example. The responding LEO really has no reason to even approach that individual unless there are other accusations such as threatening behavior, etc. Just inform the caller that they made a false police report and proceed accordingly with that person if the LEO feels the need to do anything.

I also find it particularly irritating that I as a private individual have a greater responsibility to know the law than the LEO's that have been granted powers such as arrest and confiscation of weapons. Ignorance of the law should not be an excuse for either of us, IMHO.

I'm so often amazed at what various venues think constitutes "news."

Of course LEOs can disarm you for "officer safety." This is nothing new. It also does not apply only to guns. I've never been arrested, but just about every time I was detained outside of my car, my pocket knife was taken for the duration of our "mandatory conversation" and returned at the end. I've only been stopped a couple times since getting my CHL, but was not disarmed either time.

I'll echo what has already been said: Be polite; comply; be honest. You'll find things go a lot easier for you than if you do otherwise.

LucasMcCain,

None of us would disagree with you.

Of course, be polite, cooperative, etc. with LEO's.

Sheesh...

It's the lack of LTC knowledge some display we're concerned about.

This statement makes me think of a police state where I have to grovel: " You'll find things go a lot easier for you than if you do otherwise."

Really?

If I'm not breaking any laws nor working at being a smart aleck, (which, I'd never do, I'm respectful) I "don't" have to be a groveler and I won't - if you think that makes me some sort of hard case, well, I'm not. I'm just not willing to be some sort of cringing, please, I'll do what you say Mr. Authority, though I've done nothing wrong, just don't hurt me, type.

Nah, that aint happening...

1. Is carrying a gun a constitutional right under 2A?
2. Should an American citizen be stripped from his or her constitutional right without "due process"?
3. Is "due process" under constitution effective all the time, and without exceptions?

Answers should be "yes","no" and "yes".

From what I have gathered here and from other sources, most Officers are not gun guys, rarely shoot other than to qualify, and most often carry and are familiar with striker fired pistols.
Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with said Officer disarming an LTC with a cocked and locked 1911?