Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer

[mojo84]

Texas Sheepdog's comments are exactly why I've challenged some of the cops on here about disarming a chl without having an actual reason to believe it necessary for officer safety. Some departments and individual cops do it as a matter of SOP regardless of whether the "suspect" gives them reason to believe it necessary for safety reasons.

I also don't buy the idea any decent cop can always articulate a valid reason like one or two on here have said before.

[longtooth]

Welcome tothe forum Texas Sheepdog. With 4 post you have definately made a 1st impression.
With me too.
Do you mind sharing your location & agency of your avitar?
At least the County of your jurisdiction.???

[Abraham]

Texas Sheepdog makes an excellent point.

Some LEO organizations can arbitrarily decide to disarm the legally armed because they can / will as a matter of routine / and then chortle about it. (a big police wave of the fingers while pressing thumb against the nose in the direction of you uppity CHL types...)

Confirms the notion that some (by no means all) police disagree about law abiding citizens being armed and this policy is one of the ways they can demonstrate it, while reasserting their need to control us subjects, er, citizens.

The implementation of this policy has a no nonsense police state ring about it.

You - CITIZEN - you vill obey!

Show me your papers now Schweinhund!

[E.Marquez]

I also don't buy the idea any decent cop can always articulate a valid reason like one or two on here have said before.

I believe any reasonable articulate adult can do that as well... it's pretty low bar set by the law. It is based on what the LEO reasonably believes, not tangible, quantifiable substance...
Hard to disprove an intangible.

Observed a vehicle with a tail light out, upon initiating the stop with emergency lights and voice command to pull over, the driver did not pull over immediately (1), but proceeded to a poorly light parking lot(2). Upon first contact, the driver appeared nervous(3). Driver presented a DL and CHL. Based on the drivers actions, and my observations that he was acting nervous, for the safety of myself and the public I informed the driver I would be disarming him IAW GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM

I am not a LEO, so I likely have the verbiage and jargon wrong,,, point is.. only subjective things must be articulated to justify and comply with GC 411.207. Most any High school graduate could do that….Never mind a professional law enforcement officer that does this stuff for a living.


*1(as most of us are taught to pull over to a SAFE location, and that is a determination made on the spot by a citizen not used to doing so I can see passing a possible spot, looking for a better spot to pull over, or off a street)
*2(As per 1 above... finding a spot that is safe, the parking lot in the drivers mind may be a "safe" spot, meaning no traffic, but the LEO sees it as a more dangerous spot as it's isolated, and "poorly" lit,, even though it is lighted as well or no worse than another parking lot in the area)
*3(Acting nervous,, taking out of context it can be suspicious, but as most are apt to be a bit nervous at being lit up, pulled over.. not really that suspicious at all in the correct context)
Add to all of that, an officer with a preconceived mental position that there job is more dangerous than most others (statistically not true) perhaps been in a few dicey situations.. and there personal perception (fairly I might add) may be biased to see possible danger or suspicion in ways others (us, generally good guys) may not see the same.

[mojo84]

I'm not going to argue with you EM as I don't think it was intended or written that they could do it without reasonable belief, ("reasonably believes" not "feeling") and just as a matter of standard procedure. Many cops do this as way of reminding the "suspect" who's in charge and who is in control.

You can think what you do and I can think what I do.

[E.Marquez]

I'm not going to argue with you EM as I don't think it was intended or written that they could do it without reasonable belief, ("reasonably believes" not "feeling") and just as a matter of standard procedure. Many cops do this as way of reminding the "suspect" who's in charge and who is in control.

You can think what you do and I can think what I do.

Was not intended or stated as an argument But ongoing discussion.
And yes, I'll edit my post above to use the correct words.." reasonably believes" Good point thanks.
Though same idea, still NO tangible action overt or otherwise required..

[G26ster]

Add to all of that, an officer with a preconceived mental position that there job is more dangerous than most others (statistically not true) perhaps been in a few dicey situations.. and there personal perception (fairly I might add) may be biased to see possible danger or suspicion in ways others (us, generally good guys) may not see the same.

I'd have to say that the majority of what I read on the forum would say the LEO is no different than we are. It seems to me that nearly everyone here is biased or suspicious and is in condition yellow at all times, and go to condition orange (at least) with every so called suspicious encounter. Whether this be a knock on the door, an encounter with a person walking towards them and/or dressed shabbily, a person or persons who seem out of place, being in an unfamiliar part of town, etc. their "spidey senses" are activated, or the "smell test" is employed. Why would it be different for a LEO to feel the same way? Just curious.

[Texas Sheepdog]

Disarming law abiding CHLers is nothing to get your yucks over.

I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks.

[Texas Sheepdog]

My suggestion is don't carry a stolen gun

Other states have the specific gun/serial number on your CHL. That could alleviate the problem. Then you can only carry what is on the CHL, and the # is already there. I don't think anybody here wants that. In reality with that system it means the CHL holder qualified with that gun at least once every 5 years. With the TX system one qualifies once every 5 with one gun, then goes off and carries whatever they want w/o qualifying.

Don't carry a stolen gun. That's good advice. LOL

[AEA]

Welcome tothe forum Texas Sheepdog. With 4 post you have definately made a 1st impression.
With me too.
Do you mind sharing your location & agency of your avitar?
At least the County of your jurisdiction.???

Texas Sheepdog.......did you miss this request above?

[Abraham]

"I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks."

And with that in mind, we're all, and I mean ALL, regarded with gross skepticism.

Sort of a first cousin of: Treat everyone as a law breaker and let god sort em out.

Sounds like a classic case of burn out...

[E.Marquez]

Disarming law abiding CHLers is nothing to get your yucks over.

I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks.

All criminals are violators, not all violators are criminals.

Yes, we get it,, you a Law Enforcement Officer do in fact contact most folks based on PC or RS that said person has violated a law in some way..

Most times your likely right, sometimes you’re not.

And many times I bet, the law in question is a nonviolent, non-serious offence..
And then there are the times the innocent citizen has contacted the police for assistance..
But it seems from what you have posted...when you, arrive, find them with a CHL, and then disarm them for your safety, and assume the weapon may be stolen, running a check in the data base.. and you considerthat acceptable conduct?

As your position is clear from your words posted. I’ll phrase this accordingly.. In the Us vs Them mentality your displaying here in this forum I believe you do a disservice to your department and I know a disservice to the public you serve.

If I have read your posts wrong, feel free to restate your opinion. Im a believer in the good LEO’s do…and in general a supporter…But my reception of your transmitted content, leaves a bad taste. I hope Im wrong, show me why if you will.

[Heartland Patriot]

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

[sjfcontrol]

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Sounds like obamacare to me. Or any law requiring more than than a handfull of pages to define. There should be a law ( ) that no law can be passed that contains more words than the Constitution contains.

[anygunanywhere]

Disarming law abiding CHLers is nothing to get your yucks over.

I agree but most cops are too busy dealing with law breakers to randomly pull over the law abiding for yucks.

My post was in direct response to yours.

That's a good approach balancing officer safety with community concerns. Our policy says to disarm everyone. If the gun comes back clean and we can verify their credentials, they get the gun back unloaded, and they can reload after they leave the scene. If there's any questions, we can hold onto the gun until we sort things out. Sometimes we hold onto the suspect too, depending on the contact. LOL

Laugh Out Loud. Your post shows you think this is humorous.

You stated that your department policy is to disarm ALL CHLs. We are not criminals and are not a threat to your safety.

Most of us do not find humor in your department's policy.

Anygunanywhere