TexasCHLforum.com

i was trolling around the net, looking for new gun shops and upcoming shows when I came arcoss this fancy new idea. I'm not sure I agree with the concept. Whats your opinion?

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/reflectorsystem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do however think their travel guide could be handy. opinions?

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/texas ... guide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And I am NOT associated with them in anyway...

night4creeper wrote:i was trolling around the net, looking for new gun shops and upcoming shows when I came arcoss this fancy new idea. I'm not sure I agree with the concept. Whats your opinion?

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/reflectorsystem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I am NOT associated with them in anyway...

I don't like it - Just another gimmick like the CHL badge. IMO, your hands should be empty when approached by an LEO. Especially at night, when any object can look like a gun.

night4creeper wrote:i was trolling around the net, looking for new gun shops and upcoming shows when I came arcoss this fancy new idea. I'm not sure I agree with the concept. Whats your opinion?

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/reflectorsystem.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do however think their travel guide could be handy. opinions?

http://legallyarmed.com/resources/texas ... guide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And I am NOT associated with them in anyway...

Sorry, but this thing has no upside at all that I can think of.

The issues surrounding the IFF problem (Identification - Friend or Foe) were fairly extensively discussed in this thread. The considerations found there apply here.

The biggest issue is this thing does not credibly or effectively communicate one's status at a distance. Also, holding an object - any object - in your hand as police approach is a high risk tactic, since distance, poor lighting, etc. often make it very difficult to distinguish what it is, and officers responding to a violent event have to consider it may well be a weapon. If the area is illuminated by car headlights, spotlights, etc. the bright reflection shown in the photos does not provide identification - it just adds confusion to what is already an uncertain and hazardous moment.

A more solid reference for CHL holders is this guide to the firearms laws of all 50 states written by a highly regarded attorney.

Lots of other high quality gun and knife law references can be found here.

I sure dont need one. Stick w/ "Officer, my name is LT, I have a Texas CHL & I am armed. How do you wnat to proceed?"

It has worked for a better than 10 yrs now.

Incidentally, I think such things may be illegal in New Mexico.

longtooth wrote:I sure dont need one. Stick w/ "Officer, my name is LT, I have a Texas CHL & I am armed. How do you wnat to proceed?"

It has worked for a better than 10 yrs now.

Ya know... for someone who recently confessed to leaving their ID at home, this might be just the thing for you, LT! Something you can wear on your belt, or on your suspenders. Just saying...

I'll take my chances lady.
In Texas we really have some OK cops.

I think the idea is stupid.

The best method for sorting out IFF situations, I would think, is that the bad guy is the one shooting at all the people who are screaming and trying to get away while the good guy is the one shooting at him.

It doesn't matter if someone is "legally" armed or "illegally" armed. It doesn't matter, until someone who is legally or illegally armed does something that warrants attention, like pulling a gun on someone during a traffic stop.

What needs to change is law enforcements' attitude.

nitrogen wrote:It doesn't matter if someone is "legally" armed or "illegally" armed. It doesn't matter, until someone who is legally or illegally armed does something that warrants attention, like pulling a gun on someone during a traffic stop.

What needs to change is law enforcements' attitude.

I'm all ears.

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this time.

bdickens wrote:I think the idea is stupid.

The best method for sorting out IFF situations, I would think, is that the bad guy is the one shooting at all the people who are screaming and trying to get away while the good guy is the one shooting at him.

In situations where the observer is in a position to see all of that and has time to watch for a while to figure out who's who, that's pretty much what goes on. Unfortunately, just like witnesses, approaching police officers only have what can be observed from their position to make decisions on.

Examples:

1. The approach path of the first LEO on the scene is from behind the CHL'er who's firing at the bad guy, who is ducking behind cover. What they see: 1 guy in civilian clothes shooting at somebody else who's not shooting back.

2. The LEO approaches and sees 1 guy in civilian clothes (CHL) apparently firing towards a group of people scattering away from him. A building corner blocks his view of the armed bad guy who is firing back at the CHL'er.

The real deal is much sloppier( in the sense that there's a lot of uncertainty and multiple ways to interpret what you can see) than the theory.

Responding officers are trained and have the duty to shout commands and order the armed suspects(CHLers included) not shoot them in the back! Chler on chler is bit tricky.

As my Dad would say:
"Just another gimmick that someone is trying to make a fast buck."

Dan20703 wrote:As my Dad would say: "Just another gimmick that someone is trying to make a fast buck."

Yep - or as George Carlin used to say, "...nail two boards together and some smuck will buy them..."!