TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote:Excellent article!

One observation....

Yes, there will be some officers who are jerks and they are going to hassle anyone carrying a handgun openly, just as some open-carry supporters love to make videos of them harassing officers doing their jobs. Thankfully, the numbers in both groups are very small.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of statutory relief proposed for citizens who OC and are victim to that kind of harassment?....

That would be very hard to draft and it would kill the bill. Notice I used the term "hassle" intentionally to mean impolite conduct, not unlawful conduct. Kory Watkins would consider a police officer looking in his general direction to be a violation of his constitutional rights, so how much "hassle" would be actionable? If a citizens civil rights are truly violated, there's already a remedy in the form of a §1983 lawsuit, but it will take a lot more than just asking to see one's CHL.

The idea is reasonable, but the devil is in the details.

Chas.

Crossfire wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Retention holsters are slower to draw from, especially for people who have certain physical limitations such as arthritis and for women in general.

I'm a little concerned about this statement with regards to women. Am I reading this correctly? Does it say that women, in general, draw from a retention holster slower than men?

Yes. Women generally having a shorter torso so mid-ride and high-ride holsters already present a problem for them on the draw. That's why we see so many women lean to their weak side to draw from a holster. Combine that with a retention holster, particularly a level 3 holster, and the draw stroke is usually slower than with men. Level 2 holsters aren't as bad, but that's still one more operation they must complete while getting the grip out of their ribcage. Female officers that wear off-set holsters don't have the problems that traditional holsters present, but that type of holster isn't going to be worn by people carrying openly.

Chas.

I agree. I am taller than your average female (5'09"), and still have trouble with a waistband holster unless it fits very low. It is quite difficult to draw when the grip is already almost up to your armpit

And that, my friends, is why your wife, girlfriend, significant other, etc, wants to carry in her purse.

Interesting, good to know.

great article

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jason K wrote:Excellent article!

One observation....

Yes, there will be some officers who are jerks and they are going to hassle anyone carrying a handgun openly, just as some open-carry supporters love to make videos of them harassing officers doing their jobs. Thankfully, the numbers in both groups are very small.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of statutory relief proposed for citizens who OC and are victim to that kind of harassment?....

That would be very hard to draft and it would kill the bill. Notice I used the term "hassle" intentionally to mean impolite conduct, not unlawful conduct. Kory Watkins would consider a police officer looking in his general direction to be a violation of his constitutional rights, so how much "hassle" would be actionable? If a citizens civil rights are truly violated, there's already a remedy in the form of a §1983 lawsuit, but it will take a lot more than just asking to see one's CHL.

The idea is reasonable, but the devil is in the details.

Chas.

It always is.....

By "harassment", I'm leaning more toward the legal definition of "Official Oppression". Maybe that's the law we need to amend?

Jason K wrote:Excellent article!

One observation....

Yes, there will be some officers who are jerks and they are going to hassle anyone carrying a handgun openly, just as some open-carry supporters love to make videos of them harassing officers doing their jobs. Thankfully, the numbers in both groups are very small.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of statutory relief proposed for citizens who OC and are victim to that kind of harassment?....

Initially, there is going to be a learning curve for both sides. But given that the majority of LEOs are good & honest, I think that the shock will wear off and officers asking for id for simply open carrying will quickly diminish. And I also think that the MWAG calls will quickly include the operator asking the caller what the MWAG is doing before dispatching the call. I don't think many departments will be real excited about running officers all over town for what can quickly be dismissed as no big deal.

sbrawley wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Jason K wrote:Excellent article!

One observation....

Yes, there will be some officers who are jerks and they are going to hassle anyone carrying a handgun openly, just as some open-carry supporters love to make videos of them harassing officers doing their jobs. Thankfully, the numbers in both groups are very small.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of statutory relief proposed for citizens who OC and are victim to that kind of harassment?....

Initially, there is going to be a learning curve for both sides. But given that the majority of LEOs are good & honest, I think that the shock will wear off and officers asking for id for simply open carrying will quickly diminish. And I also think that the MWAG calls will quickly include the operator asking the caller what the MWAG is doing before dispatching the call. I don't think many departments will be real excited about running officers all over town for what can quickly be dismissed as no big deal.

to this and would like to add first, that the majority of officers are able to pick up on clues of "suspicious activity" so if someone is legally OC'ing then that person for the most part won't be giving off those suspicious clues to an officer who may be observing. Also as for the dispatch scenario, if they aren't already required to gather details about reported crimes, then that'll just have to be a policy update for the LE agencies but eventually all of the hype over OC will blow over and no one will give it a second thought.

I meant to also include the adjustment for those that choose to of at first. Initially those that are carrying openly may have to put up with requests to see their license when all they're doing is open carrying. As stated in the article, there will need to be understanding on both sides th initial adjustment phase for this to work.

It's going to take some time to get used too. I'm not looking forward to the huge influx of MWAG calls we will have to investigate taking us away from more important calls. With time it will calm down.

nightmare69 wrote:It's going to take some time to get used too. I'm not looking forward to the huge influx of MWAG calls we will have to investigate taking us away from more important calls. With time it will calm down.

I generally agree with you that, over time, it will calm down. However, I'm not so sure that MAWG calls will overload all 911 call centers, as every TV station news, every radio station news, every newspaper, magazine(eg: Texas Monthly), online magazine will be filled with news stories about how it is NOW legal to open carry, provided that one has a license to carry. And I would speculate that those news stories will continue for a lonnnnggggggg time. As the general populace becomes aware of the new law, IMO, that issue will be resolved rather quickly. And just as quickly, it will become a non-issue.

Just my opinion.

I don't remember how much news or media coverage there was in 1995 when CHL was passed because I wasn't paying attention to it then. However, I can't imagine that it was insignificant. When I got mine in 2002, first first experience with a LEO was with a Dallas sergeant that didn't even know what the license was I had handed him or that the state even allowed non-LEOs to carry handguns.

There will still be LEOs and non-LEOs that will not know that an OC law has even passed.

C-dub wrote:I don't remember how much news or media coverage there was in 1995 when CHL was passed because I wasn't paying attention to it then.

The media coverage was massive and all negative. It was the "blood in the streets," "genocide," "dead wives and kids" garbage. This is in large part why the small general "no guns" decals were popping up all over Texas like crabgrass and why Tex. Penal Code §30.06 was created in 1997.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:I don't remember how much news or media coverage there was in 1995 when CHL was passed because I wasn't paying attention to it then.

The media coverage was massive and all negative. It was the "blood in the streets," "genocide," "dead wives and kids" garbage. This is in large part why the small general "no guns" decals were popping up all over Texas like crabgrass and why Tex. Penal Code §30.06 was created in 1997.

Chas.

Perhaps it could be effective to play some of that fear mongering media coverage in future testimony?

"Look at what never came to pass. Same thing today."

Quote the statistics(official) as they state the case very well that CHL holders are well behaved. No need to bring up details from the past (negative press) that only fuels persons that don't want to work with facts and data and hear the bad and ignore positive. IMHO
Mike

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:I don't remember how much news or media coverage there was in 1995 when CHL was passed because I wasn't paying attention to it then.

The media coverage was massive and all negative. It was the "blood in the streets," "genocide," "dead wives and kids" garbage. This is in large part why the small general "no guns" decals were popping up all over Texas like crabgrass and why Tex. Penal Code §30.06 was created in 1997.

Chas.

Perhaps it could be effective to play some of that fear mongering media coverage in future testimony?

"Look at what never came to pass. Same thing today."

mojo84 wrote:I can see both sides having to cooperate, concede and compromise some, at least in the early stages.

If people will be reasonable and not always pushing their agenda, it can be worked out.

I agree with your statements and sentiment, but I do not have faith that people will be "reasonable". Consider recent events. An alleged "gentle giant" assaults a shop owner, steals from the store, assaults a police officer and is shot dead by the police officer in self-defense. The white house sends a presidential delegation to the thug's funeral and the police officer lives in fear of his life and is forced to resign from his job. In Ohio at a Walmart, a man of African decent picks up a toy gun that is out of its package and puts it in his shopping cart. A "concerned citizen" calls 911 and gives misleading and false information regarding the man's actions with the toy gun. The police think the man with a gun is hostile and he is shot to death by the police. Had the "concerned citizen" told the truth to 911, the man might still be alive. He should not have been shot, it was a toy gun in a shopping cart. At Fort Hood, a terrorist shoots a number of people and the government merely classifies it as "workplace" violence.

At present, it seems people lack cooperation and a complete lack of common sense. I prefer to carry concealed and not advertise nor give anyone a reason to be concerned when I am out and about. If a police officer stops me, I will simply follow his instructions and inform him that I have a CHL and ask how he/she wants me to proceed.

I think that OCing in public will cause a lot of panic amongst the uninformed public and make a police officer's job more difficult because he won't know if a person that OCing is a CHL holder or a dangerous person. Until the public gets its common sense back, I do not have faith that people will be reasonable.

OneGun wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I can see both sides having to cooperate, concede and compromise some, at least in the early stages.

If people will be reasonable and not always pushing their agenda, it can be worked out.

I agree with your statements and sentiment, but I do not have faith that people will be "reasonable". Consider recent events. An alleged "gentle giant" assaults a shop owner, steals from the store, assaults a police officer and is shot dead by the police officer in self-defense. The white house sends a presidential delegation to the thug's funeral and the police officer lives in fear of his life and is forced to resign from his job. In Ohio at a Walmart, a man of African decent picks up a toy gun that is out of its package and puts it in his shopping cart. A "concerned citizen" calls 911 and gives misleading and false information regarding the man's actions with the toy gun. The police think the man with a gun is hostile and he is shot to death by the police. Had the "concerned citizen" told the truth to 911, the man might still be alive. He should not have been shot, it was a toy gun in a shopping cart. At Fort Hood, a terrorist shoots a number of people and the government merely classifies it as "workplace" violence.

At present, it seems people lack cooperation and a complete lack of common sense. I prefer to carry concealed and not advertise nor give anyone a reason to be concerned when I am out and about. If a police officer stops me, I will simply follow his instructions and inform him that I have a CHL and ask how he/she wants me to proceed.

I think that OCing in public will cause a lot of panic amongst the uninformed public and make a police officer's job more difficult because he won't know if a person that OCing is a CHL holder or a dangerous person. Until the public gets its common sense back, I do not have faith that people will be reasonable.

And therein lies my biggest fear with OC, that my name would become synonymous with Eric Scott. I might be minding my own business, threatening no one, and end up being given conflicting orders from multiple officers that I could not possibly comply with.