Very few of us agree on every issue we discuss and some topics generate substantial disagreement. But this background information Elvis has given us shows he is a supporter of CHLs and the entire CHL program. It also shows he is in a position to impact the way his officers interact with CHLs and taking his comments to heart, I think he will demand respect from his officers. Thanks for the background info Elvis; it should help to put your position into perspective.Elvis wrote: OK it’s a new day and I finally got some sleep so let me attempt to correct some of the mis-understandings some of you are getting from my earlier posts. First I would like to Thank Mr. Cotton for allowing us the opportunity to discuss these topics and I enjoy a healthy and productive debate. Many of you seem to be reading my statements and picking out small portions that you don’t agree with and that is fine but try and absorb the overall points I am attempting to make. I am a Cop and the head of a small agency and yes it can be a tough area. I am a Father, Husband, Texan, Christian, American, CHL Holder, NRA/TSRA Member, Gun Owner, LEO Firearms Instructor, LEO Academy Instructor and you will find no one more concerned and considerate about the rights of the citizens of this Great State. I am new to this forum but not new to the issues you all care so passionately about. I am a CHL Instructor with over 3000 students attending my classes. I believe strongly in the rights of everyone to be able to legally defend themselves and have no sympathy for those that would prey upon us our families.
I want to correct a misstatement I may have made during the seminar I gave on Friday, August 1st. I seem to recall someone asking me if they have to show their CHL during a traffic stop if they didn't get out of the car and I think I said "no" because you wouldn't be carrying "pursuant to the authority of your "CHL. If I did say that, I was wrong. As others have pointed out, the statute doesn't refer to carrying "pursuant to the authority" as it does in other places. (I was thinking about a different part of the Gov't Code.) Sorry about the mistake.Elvis wrote:Now that you know a little bit about me go back and re-read this entire thread. The topic started off discussing the disparity regarding why CHL holders have to display their license and non-CHL holders do not. I am in agreement that this disparity is not FAIR. I expect the Legislators will address this issue and all will this will be taken care of. For now the law is that you must display your CHL when asked for ID and I think that is in the best interest of everyone involved. I attempted to give you a perspective of what LEO’s have to deal with on a daily basis. I have been accused of having a chip on my shoulder. Well I have been to too many Officers funerals in my career and that tends to do that to a person. Some here think I and other Officers will “Freak Out” if you tell me you have a gun. Any prudent Officer will assume that everyone we come into contact with is armed and has the ability to harm us UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. My advise here has been prove you do not have the intention to harm the Officer by letting him know you are one of the “Good Guys” by displaying your CHL. It appears to me that some of you have had unfortunate contacts with Officers and for that I am truly saddened. Some of you may have been disarmed for no reason other than your status as a CHL holder and that is wrong. I can understand you not wanting to notify an Officer that you are armed in an attempt to prevent the Officer from disarming you and that can put a chip on your shoulder. I have heard the horror stories from my students and know Officers make bad judgments regarding your rights as a CHL holder. Trust me Officer Rothstein and I will attempt to correct that problem from our end. My purpose in posting here is to try and get the CHL holder to approach contact with law enforcement in a positive and safe manner.
I want to repeat something I've said a number of times in various venues. LEOs and CHLs are natural-born allies. This doesn't mean we agree on every issue. (I met my wife when we were 12 years old and I've been crazy about her ever since. We've been married 35 years and we certainly don't agree on everything, but after 3 and 1/2 decades, I'd still run into a burning building for her.) For the most part, the vast majority of LEOs and CHLs have the same values, we dislike the same evils and evil people and we want to live in the same type of society. Yes, there are exceptions in both the LEO and CHL community. Some COPS flat don't want anyone but another COP to have a gun. In my view, they aren't fit to wear a badge and they would never work for me, if I was a Chief. On the other side of the coin, some CHLs think every COP is out to trample their rights. Both of these extreme views are wrong, but all too often they are based upon a small number of interactions that were "unpleasant." A CHL with a lousy and disrespectful attitude toward a LEO during a traffic stop or other encounter can leave a lasting impression, just as a COP with "heavy-badge syndrome" can cause a citizen to quickly develop an "I hate COPS" attitude. Both CHLs and LEOs make up a very small segment of the general population, so both groups are unlikely to deal with the other group on a frequent basis. Thus every single "bad" encounter is magnified, no matter which side of the badge you are on. I'm not saying we should dismiss a jerk's conduct (CHL or LEO), but I am saying I can't hold my sister-in-law's many faults against my wife. (But sometimes I wonder . . .
) Elvis and I obviously disagree on the legal requirement for showing a CHL during an interaction with law enforcement. I would still do it even if the law is changed for the reasons I've stated, but that's beside the point. Elvis wants his officers to know of the gun; I don't want a CHL facing suspension and/or a Class B conviction for forgetting to show a CHL. This difference of opinion doesn't turn natural allies into enemies. It doesn't mean I don't care about his officers' lives, nor does it mean he is showing contempt for CHLs.
I do understand the argument that CHLs having a disclosure requirement that does not apply to non-CHLs is both unfair and somewhat silly. I agree that it should be changed and I hope that comes about in 2009. If the disclosure requirement is repealed, I'll still recommend to my students that they show the CHL.
Whenever we get into discussions like these, I'm reminded of CHL/LEO's comment that every CHL is a representative of all CHLs when they are interacting with a LEO, and that the reverse is also true. Let's all be good ambassadors and remember that the next guy in line will have to deal with the impression we have created.
Chas.