Texas Open Carry

[GoodOlBoy]

Alright TxGunNut suggested we do a thread on the new Open carry law in Texas.

My feelings? I like that we now have it. I probably won't ever use it simply because I agree that concealed carry (yes I am licensed) is a better option in 99% of cases. But I like that I have the option.

What's your 2 cents?

GoodOlBoy

[quickdraw66]

Whether we plan on using it or not, we should all be happy that we have gotten some of our rights back. This also puts an end to the "printing" issue.

[Kent Fowler]

Glad to see it pass as liberal bastions such as Austin will have to comply with the law. I bet there were some choice words flying, from their anti-Second Amendment city council and the left wing Southern Californian they hired for a police chief, when this bill passed. Also, as the above poster stated, all issues resulting in the gun not being completely concealed have gone away. Everyone I have talked to was happy for the bill to pass, but none of them have stated any desire to openly carry. I personally will continue to carry concealed, but I might get a outside belt holster to wear under a coat in the winter as it's becoming difficult to use an inside w/b holster due to my expanding mid section. Guess I need to lay off of the vienna sausages with mustard, which was the primo dinner when I was in the Boy Scouts out in West Texas.

[lancem]

For me too the reason I hoped it would pass would be for the printing issue to go away.

[1Shirt]

To each his own, but unless I am hunting, I don't need open carry. That said, it is great to have the option.
1Shirt!

[lbaize3]

I also like the option, but doubt I will open carry. Don't want to be the cause of little ole ladies wetting their drawers and fainting...

[TheDoctor]

I like it. Would love to be able to carry full size without the printing issue. Very very difficult for a smaller guy like me. Will I open carry? Absolutely! All the time? Nope, will actually be a rare occurance. Where I live, not overly concerned about upsetting the little old ladies. They will probably strap on more often than I will!

[NavyVet1959]

What many people don't realize is that *currently*, we can only legally open carry a handgun on our own property. If we were visiting a friend or relative, we could not legally open carry on their property even if they gave us permission unless we were actively hunting. That is a totally BS law, but that is what we've been stuck with. Even with the new Open Carry Law, those without a CHL will still have to abide by that BS law, but there was a piece of legislation this session that was supposed to get rid of this. I don't know the bill number or how it did though. I think most people just didn't realize that open carrying a handgun on a friend's or relative's property (even with permission) was illegal. This is not just an open carry issue, but a property rights issue.

I fully support Open Carry, even though I don't see myself using it that much. I mainly see myself using it for when I need to drive from one of my properties to another. With it, I won't have to put on a vest to cover the gun while I'm in my car. If open carry truly becomes accepted here in Texas, we might expect to see less of the compact handguns and more of the medium to full size ones. We might also start seeing more nicely tooled leather holsters instead of the plastic / Kydex ones and more steel handguns instead of tuperware. During a Texas summer, it would also be nice to have one less layer of clothing that I would need to wear.

Will it ever be common to walk into a store and see something like this and it not be out of the ordinary? I hope so...

http://cabotgun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_1724-e1354540006390-300x287.jpg

Unfortunately, I suspect that too many will end up looking like this: :(

http://www.kingwood.com/message_board/forumimgs/701015646385465.jpg

[TheDoctor]

The whole bit about carrying on property other than yours is one of the things that prompted me to apply for a chl to begin with. As far as the bottom picture.....STAY OUT OF WALMART!

[mjwcaster]

Haven't looked at the bill, does it cover those with just a TX permit, or any permit that TX recognizes?
I'm assuming all recognized permits.

It will make it easier when I get back down there for hunting.
No more worrying if the weather warms up and I take off a coat that the gun is now open carried. I prefer an OWB holster for hunting, IWB for daily carry.

Texas has the reputation for being ultra gun friendly, most people are astonished when they find out that handgun open carry isn't legal and what hoops had to be jumped through for a Concealed carry permit (revised last year).
And what it took to get concealed carry in TX, the Libby's restaurant massacre.

Glad they are getting things right, I do love it down there, on my very short list of places to escape to in the future.

Will I be open carrying, no not normally.
But it will be nice not to have to worry about the state of the handgun while driving around in a truck full of rifles.
Was always funny that we could have as many loaded rifles/shotguns in the truck, but had to be concerned in how the pistol was carried.

Go Texas.

[TXGunNut]

I doubt I'll change how I carry, my LE training about the tactical advantage of concealed carry in plain clothes is still with me but it could be that the situation has changed. As always I'll have to study on this a bit. Haven't read the version of the law that actually passed, that could have an influence on my actions as well. All in all I think it's a good law, may finally get to show off some the fine steel handguns and quality leatherwork I've been hiding all these years if the situation calls for it.

[skeettx]

We shall see if the crazies come out and how long it take for the smoke to settle.

I am a CC and will be carrying concealed when I carry.
Why give away a tactical advantage and become a target??

Mike

[shooter93]

I often wonder if we all shouldn't be carrying openly. I understand the points against it but I also remember when I was a young lad. I doubt any generation could be exposed to more firearms than we were. We weren't shooting up our classmates either. Many hunted their way to school and hunted their way home. Firearms were a very common sight and no one got bent out of shape or panicky. They were just firearms is all and maybe.....but I suppose highly unlikely....if it was more common and the great fears some have never materialize the opposition would calm down a bit.

[quickdraw66]

Will it ever be common to walk into a store and see something like this and it not be out of the ordinary? I hope so...

http://cabotgun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/IMG_1724-e1354540006390-300x287.jpg



What store are you going to? I wanna go there too! :D

[dragon813gt]

We shall see if the crazies come out and how long it take for the smoke to settle.


They won't be coming out. You will find that it's business as usual. This is the case in states that have had open carry for decades.

The more people OC, the more people are exposed to firearms. It becomes commonplace and along w/ that is comfort. It will take years but the more people are comfortable being around the firearms the less we will have to fight for our rights.

[NavyVet1959]

There's going to be a public acceptable period. I would like to see some of the legislators, politicians, and media personalities get on the bandwagon and start open carrying while not making a big deal of it. The more people are exposed to it, the less they will think that it is some sort of big deal for someone to have a particular type of tool on their belt.

[GoodOlBoy]

Yeah try finding the passed wording of the bill. HB 910 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 I spent some time on the web page and am still scratching my head.

GoodOlBoy

[DLCTEX]

I guess Greg Abbot earned my vote.

[skeettx]

GOB, For wording look here

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910

[Lonegun1894]

I want to read the final version case I have a distrust of anything any legislature passes til I see the final copy. It's usually a matter of the devil being in the details, as with so many other things. I do like that we finally have the option though, cause personally, I always assume that everyone is armed at all times til proven otherwise, and not the other way around. And If I can be trusted to carry concealed, there is absolutely no reason that I should not be allowed to carry openly too. I mean, either we are considered responsible adults, or we aren't. I just hope that they didn't do what Arizona did for a few short years. Back then, you could carry EITHER openly, or concealed, but not both. I found that out when I got stopped for speeding one day and asked an AZ Trooper and got told that I had to choose between the 1911 on my belt, or the snubby in my pocket to be legal, but to either carry both concealed or both openly. Thankfully, he thought that particular law was senseless as it had been explained to him and he was not interested in enforcing it.

You know, while they're fixing stupid laws, how about doing away with the list of places they won't let a CHL carry? If you're a criminal, I don't want you carrying anywhere, but if you're a good law-abiding citizen, I want you armed absolutely everywhere if you're willing, cause it may just be you who drops the criminal that puts your loved ones and mine in danger.

[GoodOlBoy]

I looked there skeet, but it's all the modified documents. I couldn't figure out what was that actual passed text.

GoodOlBoy

[MtGun44]

Even reading it, it is goobledy-goop to an out of state person.

Simple questions:
Can any one carry openly or only CCW licensees?
What about out of state folks?
Are certain businesses automatically off limits?
Must you obey signs telling you not to be armed?
Is a specific sign required to be legal? (In KS, the wrong sign makes it invalid).

Thanks.

Bill

[archmaker]

For it, as I have a CHL, and from what i seen of the "proposed" law it basically took the CHL, part and removed the C (concealed). The law stays pretty much the same with the work Concealed striked out. Only impacts handguns, as the open carry of rifles and shotguns was not addressed from what I could understand.

Will still carry concealed, but whereas in the past I worried about the gun printing will worry less about it.

Did have one time when I was in Decatur, wind blowing and had to get something out of the back of the truck (has a camper shell) and dang if the wind didn't blow my shirt up around to about mid body, sure my gun was visible to all who looked. One less thing to worry about.

[Lonegun1894]

Even reading it, it is goobledy-goop to an out of state person.

Simple questions:
Can any one carry openly or only CCW licensees? Only Licensees
What about out of state folks? Didn't specify so I would assume anyone with a license from a State whose licenses Texas honors
Are certain businesses automatically off limits? Must be posted to be off limits, but in general, anyplace that gets 51% or more of it's income from the sale of alcohol for consumption on premises (legal to carry into a liquor store cause you're not allowed to drink there, but not legal to carry into a bar)
Must you obey signs telling you not to be armed? Only if they are the legislature specified legal signs, non-legal signs are not enforceable
Is a specific sign required to be legal? (In KS, the wrong sign makes it invalid). Yes, has to be specific signs used:


Thanks.

Bill

I hope the above makes sense and helps keep people out of trouble.

[Lonegun1894]

Ok, my post was too long, so here's the rest, I hope:

In Texas there are two different signs that restrict a concealed handgun license holder from carrying into a place of business. They are a 30.06 sign, and a 51% sign.

A 30.06 sign is a sign that a business owner can post to restrict a CHL holder from entering the business with a concealed handgun. The sign must contain the exact words required by Section 30.06 in both English and Spanish, be placed in an area visible to the public, and have 1" lettering or it will not be considered a legally-binding 30.06 sign. "Gunbuster" signs, or signs with a red slash through a gun, are not considered valid 30.06 postings.

30.06 legally required wording: "PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06,
PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN)
A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS
PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."


A 51% sign is a sign that a business is required by law to post if 51% of their revenue is obtained through on-premises drinking, such as at a bar. Unfortunately this also has the consequence of not allowing CHL holders to enter the premises where the drinking is taking place while carrying their handgun.
Additional places are not required to post a sign to forbid CHL holders from entering the premises with their handgun as Texas law already forbids it, such as court houses and educational institutions.

[Lonegun1894]

The one on the left is the 51% sign that says you can't carry regardless if licensed or not. The one on the right allows you to carry if you are a licensee, but is a felony warning if you are not.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStkuqMQuu7FV8PpiHggh6nZ8WbGYNDa uuRaeEe40z2o1Az2-Y9dA

[Lonegun1894]

The one on the right in the post above is what you will see at the entrances to anyplace that sells alcohol for consumption somewhere else, so you'll see this one at liquor stores, most gas stations, most grocery stores, any restaurant where you can order an alcoholic drink, etc. If you are licensed to carry, you can just ignore this one or consider it a welcome sign. Just please make sure you don't ignore the 51% sign, cause they take that one kinda seriously.

[NavyVet1959]

The one on the left is the 51% sign that says you can't carry regardless if licensed or not. The one on the right allows you to carry if you are a licensee, but is a felony warning if you are not.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStkuqMQuu7FV8PpiHggh6nZ8WbGYNDa uuRaeEe40z2o1Az2-Y9dA

From what I've gathered by talking to someone in the legal department of the TABC, the one on the right is actually in error. What it should say is the unlicensed possession of a *handgun*, not a *weapon* would be a felony. If you have a rifle or shotgun, apparently you are not in violation of any law, but the TABC license holder is in violation if they allow you to remain there.

[NavyVet1959]

When I got my NV CHL, they pointed out that you could not carry on premises that have a day care located on it. You can carry at a casino though. The problem is that some of the casinos have a day care for the kids of their workers and there are no signs informing you of this, so you could get in trouble. From a practical matter though, you're more likely to get into trouble if you are open carrying in that type of situation. If you are carrying concealed, you would still be in violation, but unless you gun is exposed, casino security is not going to make an issue of it. At least that is what the CHL instructor said and he had been head of security at one of the casinos.

[w5pv]

I would like to see it back like it was in the 50's and earlier where no one paid any attention to you carried,no little ladies peeing their pants because they saw some one with a gun walking down the street,yes there law breakers but name a period when there wasn't any and mass shootings.St Valentines Day Massacre for one.Samson did it with a Jawbone of an ***.

[OnceFired]

I too am waiting to see what the final text actually says. But the big benefit will be not worrying if my CCW shows while concealed. Yes carrying a gun openly should occur in my mind, but carrying it concealed will continue to be the choice I make.

[MtGun44]

First, THANKS to the folks pointing out the details of Texas' CCW laws.
I go there periodically and want to stay legal. Just for grins, I wonder if
I would have been legal in that Applebee's in Austin. . . . 51% rule,
just for purposes of discussion, if I had been carrying?


So, is the sign still valid if the handgun isn't in .30-'06 cartridge? :kidding:

Hilarious that they'd wind up with that name for the gun signs?! :bigsmyl2:

[lancem]

First, THANKS to the folks pointing out the details of Texas' CCW laws.
I go there periodically and want to stay legal. Just for grins, I wonder if
I would have been legal in that Applebee's in Austin. . . . 51% rule,
just for purposes of discussion, if I had been carrying?


So, is the sign still valid if the handgun isn't in .30-'06 cartridge? :kidding:

Hilarious that they'd wind up with that name for the gun signs?! :bigsmyl2:

Red 51% sign no, blue sign yes if you have a CHL.

[GoodOlBoy]

Also remember. The 51% rule ONLY APPLIES if it is POSTED. If they make 51% or more from the sale of liquor and it isn't posted you are covered.

GoodOlBoy

[Lonegun1894]

Also remember. The 51% rule ONLY APPLIES if it is POSTED. If they make 51% or more from the sale of liquor and it isn't posted you are covered.

GoodOlBoy

+1! It is up to them to provide notice of their status, NOT up to you to research every business you go into ahead of time. If it's not posted as a 51%, then you're legal.

[Lonegun1894]

First, THANKS to the folks pointing out the details of Texas' CCW laws.
I go there periodically and want to stay legal. Just for grins, I wonder if
I would have been legal in that Applebee's in Austin. . . . 51% rule,
just for purposes of discussion, if I had been carrying?


So, is the sign still valid if the handgun isn't in .30-'06 cartridge? :kidding:

Hilarious that they'd wind up with that name for the gun signs?! :bigsmyl2:

I would think an Applebee wouldn't get close to being a 51% business. Our local one has the warning that UNlicensed carry is a felony, but licensed is legal.

[NavyVet1959]

I have to think that if a bar wanted to, they could structure their prices so that they did not get 51% of their sales from *alcohol*. Charge $3 for the Coke and $2 for the shot of rum and only 40% of your sales is "from alcohol". :)

[Lonegun1894]

At first, when I read your comment, I completely agreed, but then I went and tried to pay with a couple $20s and asked for $30 in gas, and the blank stare I got in return said more than any words that the cashier could have spoken. Lets just say that some people's math skills are severely lacking. And all these years I thought I was stupid for not liking algebra and calculus, but basic math has never been a problem...

[NavyVet1959]

And all these years I thought I was stupid for not liking algebra and calculus, but basic math has never been a problem...

Algebra and trig are useful math skills that I use routinely. Calculus, not so much. I was required to take probably 18+ hours of calculus for my degree and I don't think I ever had to use it during my career. I think it was just there to weed out the people who should be getting a business major instead.

[twc1964]

From what i have heard, there are no provisions built in that keep various police departments from causing any open carrier lots of greif. Searches, running background checks , etc. Just look back at the early days of ccw in texas and you will see what probably will happen with this new law. Im keeping mine under wraps because of this. Ymmv

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

we used to have problems with police departments giving open carriers a bunch of grief usually trying to give them a disorderly conduct charge , the open carriers of Wisconsin recorded everything with audio any time they carried , they kept their wits about them and they remained exactly within the statutes of the law , when it went to court they were found to have done nothing wrong , then the counter suit would net big money , it took some departments loosing a bunch of tax payer money before they learned but they did eventually get much better.

Wisconsin has always been an open carry state , that's not to say it was always popular , but we owe the open carriers who did it all right a lot for putting themselves on the line in their own form of protest researching and open carrying exactly within the law, and we had some stupid laws like unloading and locking your gun out of reach each time you go into your car , it took a bunch of court time but it paved the way for some very livable open and concealed carry

never really thought Wisconsin would be more carry frendly than TX but it appears it is

open carry at 18 with no license including in a vehicle
at 21 CCL shall issue takes about 2 weeks to get back in the mail less than 50 dollars for 5 years 4 hours one time minimum training no live fire , hunters ed or military service count as your training.
we can carry into a business that gets any or all of it's income from alcohol with a CCL as long as we are not the ones drinking
businesses can post with a 5x7 sign but it must be posted at each and every possible entrance to a building , but they accept the liability for doing so , and if not posted can not be held liable.
they can not keep you from carrying in the parking lot or on the grounds unless they have fenced and have gates that are normally locked with a posting at each entrance.
they can not keep you from carrying in your car even in your employers parking lot , a locked car is an extension of your house
your employer can not keep you from carrying in your car even if your car is used for business , if they want you to not carry they can buy you a car to drive.

the blood does not run in the streets life is very normal , carry is very easy no worries about printing , or your shirt pulling up

whether or not you intend to open carry it makes sense for it to not be a restriction , say you want to run out to your truck for a minute that is parked on the street to move it into the drive you got home and you took your cover garment off and your gun is showing it is ridiculous to have to cover back up to run out for a minute to not break the law.

[Char-Gar]

From what i have heard, there are no provisions built in that keep various police departments from causing any open carrier lots of greif. Searches, running background checks , etc. Just look back at the early days of ccw in texas and you will see what probably will happen with this new law. Im keeping mine under wraps because of this. Ymmv

The Dutton Amendment was stripped from the final bill in the Conference Committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions of the bill. The thinking was that it was unnecessary as there were other laws and constitutional provisions that prevent police from stopping and questioning people with no reason or cause.

Although it was common some years back, Texas police can no longer just stop a person driving a car to check and see if they have a DL or insurance. They can request to see those things after the stop for some valid reason, but not just to check and see.

The same will apply to open carry. The police are not allowed to stop a person who is otherwise engaged in a legal activity just to check and see if they are doing it within the law. There must be some other valid reason to ask to see the CHL.

I suspect the Texas police will require education on this matter by ways of some court verdicts before they get the message. Texas does not have a "brandishing" of firearms law, but if a firearm is displayed with the intent to cause fear to another, that can be Disturbing the Peace. The key here is intent. Texas police will have a rough sled for a time,before they get in the groove.

I do not intend to open carry for a number of reasons, but this new law does deal with the concern that a concealed handgun will be detected by common observation. If somebody does see it, that will no longer be a violation.

[smokeywolf]

One more step closer to full Constitutional carry.

[NavyVet1959]

Regardless of what the law says, there are some LEOs and DAs who will be willing to charge someone with disorderly conduct for open carrying, even if they are doing it on their own property. Unless there is a system in place where the LEOs and DAs who do this face *personal* responsibility for this, we can expect it to continue. It's not good enough that their department gets sued for violating someone's rights. They should personally face criminal and civil penalties for doing so.

[Blanco]

I personally would love to open carry. Just to exercise my rights.
I think they will need to change the wording on the 30.06 signs because you will not be concealed carrying.
What really bites is that I work on a Government facility and we can't even have or leave a firearm in our vehicles. even with a permit.....

[Charley]

Got my CHL about two weeks before the original concealed carry law went into effect, took the class and applied as soon as it was legal to do so, but actual carry went into effect a bit later. Don't intend to open carry in town, not only scares the sheeple, but also can be the equivalent of wearing a sign that says "planning on doing anything illegal? SHOOT ME FIRST!" I carry openly on my property, already legal to do so. Judging by the local liberal paper's editorial board, and the opinion pieces and letters-to-the-editor they run, the world will end on January 1. I pointed out to the eboard that they had screamed the same things 20 years ago, when concealed carry came about...typical gunophobe's sayings, "blood will run in the streets, gunfights will erupt over parking space disputes, "untrained" and "unprepared" people will accidently kill, wound and maim countless innocents, and other such BS. Of course, they've ignored me, and others like me, and continue to push the same story.

[GoodOlBoy]

There's already a known issue in Texas (has been for years) with a VERY liberal DA and Judges in Harris Country (city of Houston) where they have been ILLEGALLY locking up CCW holders who are legal in carrying. They seize everything, throw the person in jail, then by the time the person wins the case "whoopsie" everything was already sold at auction or destroyed in the case of the firearm. Then you will need the states permission to sue them..... I had been hoping for a LONG time that Rick Perry (and now Greg Abbott) will step in and do something, but last I heard it was still a "known issue"

GoodOlBoy

[TheDoctor]

I personally would love to open carry. Just to exercise my rights.
I think they will need to change the wording on the 30.06 signs because you will not be concealed carrying.
What really bites is that I work on a Government facility and we can't even have or leave a firearm in our vehicles. even with a permit.....

There is a new sign, 30.07! No joke. To bar concealed and open carry, they have to display both. And concealed carry where a 30.06 sign is posted will now only be a class c misdemeanor, unless you are personally asked to leave and refuse. Federal property not being affected by the upcoming law would be a good assumption. Open carry will NOT be allowed on college campuses, even if concealed IS allowed. And none of this takes effect until 1 Jan. Remember that. Caught this from a video email from one of the attorneys at texas law shield.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSFEfiCvFl0%2F%3Fsrc%3Dtx-newsletter

[quickdraw66]

There is a new sign, 30.07! No joke. To bar concealed and open carry, they have to display both. And concealed carry where a 30.06 sign is posted will now only be a class c misdemeanor, unless you are personally asked to leave and refuse. Federal property not being affected by the upcoming law would be a good assumption. Open carry will NOT be allowed on college campuses, even if concealed IS allowed. And none of this takes effect until 1 Jan. Remember that. Caught this from a video email from one of the attorneys at texas law shield.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSFEfiCvFl0%2F%3Fsrc%3Dtx-newsletter
On the campus carry, if Abbot signs the law (I think he will), I read it won't go into effect until Aug 2016 for universities, and Aug 2017 for community colleges.

[Lonegun1894]

Algebra and trig are useful math skills that I use routinely. Calculus, not so much. I was required to take probably 18+ hours of calculus for my degree and I don't think I ever had to use it during my career. I think it was just there to weed out the people who should be getting a business major instead.

I'm just one of those people where if you tell me I have to learn something and give me a practical application, I will learn it quickly, but If you tell me I have to learn it "cause you said so", it is like beating your head against a wall. Guess what kind of teachers I had a lot of times? I can get accurate range reading with a mil-dot scope and do that math in my head, but a lot of other things take a pencil and paper. It's all in getting it into my head as practical instead of just another concept from some class.

[Lonegun1894]

There's already a known issue in Texas (has been for years) with a VERY liberal DA and Judges in Harris Country (city of Houston) where they have been ILLEGALLY locking up CCW holders who are legal in carrying. They seize everything, throw the person in jail, then by the time the person wins the case "whoopsie" everything was already sold at auction or destroyed in the case of the firearm. Then you will need the states permission to sue them..... I had been hoping for a LONG time that Rick Perry (and now Greg Abbott) will step in and do something, but last I heard it was still a "known issue"

GoodOlBoy

Don't forget Travis County (Austin) and Bexar County (San Antonio) have also done this. Not quite as frequent or as bad as Harris County, but there have been the same kind of "incidents" in these two also. Now the State have passed a law restating that no city/county can pass weapons laws that are more restrictive than what the State says, mostly to remind the above towns/counties to knock it off, and I have been told that it has gotten better (less frequent), but there is still the isolated incident, so please watch your backs in those places everyone.

[Charley]

Don't forget Travis County (Austin) and Bexar County (San Antonio) have also done this. Not quite as frequent or as bad as Harris County, but there have been the same kind of "incidents" in these two also. Now the State have passed a law restating that no city/county can pass weapons laws that are more restrictive than what the State says, mostly to remind the above towns/counties to knock it off, and I have been told that it has gotten better (less frequent), but there is still the isolated incident, so please watch your backs in those places everyone.

I've had several encounters over the years with SAPD and other PDs in Bexar County, and have never had a single problem with any of them. Who, how, and why? Otherwise, just rumors.

[Char-Gar]

I've had several encounters over the years with SAPD and other PDs in Bexar County, and have never had a single problem with any of them. Who, how, and why? Otherwise, just rumors.

I have been carrying concealed in Texas since 1996 and never had any problem with any LEO. I have frequently been in San Antonio, Austin and Houston and have had no problems. Neither have I heard of such problems.

However, I do have considerable experience with the Texas Criminal Justice system and most often folks that have conflicts with the law did something to cause the conflict. If folks have been hassled for having a licensed concealed handgun, most likely the problem started with some other issue.

You really have to take all of these bum rap stories with a grain of salt, until proven factual, which they seldom are.

[Charley]

One of my contacts was at an auto accident, idiot from Dallas was traveling too fast on a newly wet road. I was in the right lane, he spun sideways, I was heading up the exit ramp, while he went sideways, hit the point where the exit ramp and roadway converged, gained traction, and hit me. Pushed me sideways, nobody hurt. We parked, wife and I got out and leaned against the truck bed. She was PO'd at the guy, I told her to shut up and appear calm, as she was carrying, as I was. PD from suburb outside SA responded, we were calmly lening against the truck, moron jumped out of his truck and started shouting. Officer told him to STFU, and get back inside his vehicle. Wife was trying to show her TDL and CHL, he told here he didn't need to see them...didn't know she was in the vehicle, thought she was a witness. Got things straightened out, and he said, Well, yeah, I guess I do need to look at your ID. he showed both, and he asked, "are you carrying?" She said yeah, right front pocket. He looked at me, and asked her, " is he carrying?". We both said, "yep". He shrugged, wrote up the accident report and said we were done, and could leave, while he dealt with the idiot. We hung back for a couple of minutes, in case the idiot was even stupider than he looked, and tried something. Appearance means a lot, if you look clean, calm, and collected, you have far fewer problems with LEOs, IME.

[MtGun44]

Excellent point. I have discussed this whole thing with several LEO friends and
they point out that they have to try to put each person they meet into a category -
dangerous person, or harmless person ?

If you act sensibly and calmly and do what they say, IME, you get treated like
one of the good guys. Act like an ******* and you are likely to be put in the
'potentially dangerous person' category and I can't blame the LEO.

I have done and observed telling LEOs that I or someone else was armed.
Normally, they just say, "where", then "OK, don't reach for it." and we go
on. At this point in most states, LEOs have dealt with LOTS of armed
citizens and know that they are not normally a problem.

[Lonegun1894]

I've had several encounters over the years with SAPD and other PDs in Bexar County, and have never had a single problem with any of them. Who, how, and why? Otherwise, just rumors.

That's what I get for posting with little sleep. Sorry everyone. I should have specified, but meant Unlicensed individuals who had handguns in their vehicles, as specifically allowed by TX law, who got stopped for traffic violations. I have had several (4 come to mind right now) in my CHL classes who said this had happened to them shorty after TX changed the law to specify that the unlicensed possession of a handgun in ones vehicle was legal in 2007. All charges got dropped, but it still cost them lawyers fees and a headache. Nothing in the last couple of years though, so hopefully those days are over. I have the names in my records as I am required to keep a record of all students just in case DPS ever audits me, but hope you all understand if I don't give out names for privacy and security reasons.

[quickdraw66]

That's what I get for posting with little sleep. Sorry everyone. I should have specified, but meant Unlicensed individuals who had handguns in their vehicles, as specifically allowed by TX law, who got stopped for traffic violations. I have had several (4 come to mind right now) in my CHL classes who said this had happened to them shorty after TX changed the law to specify that the unlicensed possession of a handgun in ones vehicle was legal in 2007. All charges got dropped, but it still cost them lawyers fees and a headache. Nothing in the last couple of years though, so hopefully those days are over. I have the names in my records as I am required to keep a record of all students just in case DPS ever audits me, but hope you all understand if I don't give out names for privacy and security reasons.
When I used to live in Texas, I kept a copy of that law in the car in case any officer tried to tell me that it was illegal. Luckily that never happened. It was a small country town so I don't think it was likely to happen.

[Boaz]

They are working on it Lonegun 1894 , I don't care to OC but think it should be a legal option .

[Moonie]

44 other states allow it, no blood running in the streets. NC allows OC for anyone 18 years and older that isn't barred from ownership. In NC we can purchase handguns from individuals at 18 as long as we pass a background check for the Pistol Purchase Permit, but not from FFL's until you are 21.

[quickdraw66]

In NC we can purchase handguns from individuals at 18 as long as we pass a background check for the Pistol Purchase Permit, but not from FFL's until you are 21.

It's the same in Texas, minus the pistol purchase permit thing.

[Char-Gar]

That's what I get for posting with little sleep. Sorry everyone. I should have specified, but meant Unlicensed individuals who had handguns in their vehicles, as specifically allowed by TX law, who got stopped for traffic violations. I have had several (4 come to mind right now) in my CHL classes who said this had happened to them shorty after TX changed the law to specify that the unlicensed possession of a handgun in ones vehicle was legal in 2007. All charges got dropped, but it still cost them lawyers fees and a headache. Nothing in the last couple of years though, so hopefully those days are over. I have the names in my records as I am required to keep a record of all students just in case DPS ever audits me, but hope you all understand if I don't give out names for privacy and security reasons.

The recent change in Texas law allowing carry in a vehicle without a CHL has several exceptions about certain individuals who are not allowed to do so.

In a traffic stop and a gun is in the car, the LEO really doesn't know if the individual is legal to do so without a deeper check than the usual running of a DL. Now if the driver has a gun and a CHL, the CHL is verified proof that the person is otherwise legal to have the gun.

Therefore it is logical that a non-CHL holder is more likely to have difficulties in a traffic stop and a CHL holder.

[NavyVet1959]

The recent change in Texas law allowing carry in a vehicle without a CHL has several exceptions about certain individuals who are not allowed to do so.

In a traffic stop and a gun is in the car, the LEO really doesn't know if the individual is legal to do so without a deeper check than the usual running of a DL. Now if the driver has a gun and a CHL, the CHL is verified proof that the person is otherwise legal to have the gun.

Therefore it is logical that a non-CHL holder is more likely to have difficulties in a traffic stop and a CHL holder.

I'm not sure that chain of logic holds water. It should be no different than having a rifle or shotgun in your vehicle which most LEOs that I have encountered did not give any special scrutiny to back then. If an officer encounters someone who has a rifle or shotgun in their vehicle, they don't *know* that the person is "legal" to have the firearm. Of course, as far as I'm concerned the 2nd Amendment says that *everyone* is "legal" to have *any* firearm since the Founding Fathers did not put *any* exception clauses in the 2nd Amendment.

[quickdraw66]

The recent change in Texas law allowing carry in a vehicle without a CHL has several exceptions about certain individuals who are not allowed to do so.

In a traffic stop and a gun is in the car, the LEO really doesn't know if the individual is legal to do so without a deeper check than the usual running of a DL. Now if the driver has a gun and a CHL, the CHL is verified proof that the person is otherwise legal to have the gun.

Therefore it is logical that a non-CHL holder is more likely to have difficulties in a traffic stop and a CHL holder.

During a traffic stop, unless they run your license and it pulls up any felonies or warrants, or unless you are suspected of actually committing some crime, it should be no different than if you have a CHL. The proper procedure should be to take the gun, run the license, give the gun back and send them on their way without giving them a hard time. Easy in, easy out, and the officer doesn't escalate a situation for stupid reasons.

[Char-Gar]

During a traffic stop, unless they run your license and it pulls up any felonies or warrants, or unless you are suspected of actually committing some crime, it should be no different than if you have a CHL. The proper procedure should be to take the gun, run the license, give the gun back and send them on their way without giving them a hard time. Easy in, easy out, and the officer doesn't escalate a situation for stupid reasons.

Texas Penal Code 46.02 say in part;

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which


(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us//GetStatute.aspx?Code=PE&Value=71.01&Date=6/28/2014).

How many these exceptions to legal carry in an automobile will show up on an average DL check? There are a number of reasons under 2 (B) that won't show up, mental health records certainly will not. It is possible that 2 (C) won't show up. It is also possible that (A) might not be evident during a traffic stop.

Having a CHL is proof that B and C do not apply. So a traffic stop when a gun is in the car, is not the same when there is not a CHL as when there is a CHL. This is the point I was trying to make. From the Officer's perspective a person with a gun in the car without a CHL offers a much broader possibility that the handgun is illegal. Therefore that person will receive a much higher level of scrutiny, for matters not concerned with a valid DL, Insurance, outstanding warrants or prior felony convictions.

[quickdraw66]

Texas Penal Code 46.02 say in part;

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us//GetStatute.aspx?Code=PE&Value=71.01&Date=6/28/2014).

How many these exceptions to legal carry in an automobile will show up on an average DL check?

If it doesn't show up, then too bad. If the office chooses to harass the gun owner because they MIGHT not have the gun legally, then I fully support suing his department for everything they have. When they run your license, they see the following.


Your name and aliases; your Social Security number; where you live; when you were born; the color of your skin and eyes; any scars, tattoos, or identifying marks; your height, vision, and gender; what kind of car you drive, whether it's a stolen vehicle, and your license and plate numbers; your traffic violation history; your local, state, and federal criminal history; and your fingerprints

If nothing shows up that would lead an officer to believe you are a criminal, then they need to leave you the hell alone about the gun.

[Char-Gar]

If it doesn't show up, then too bad. If the office chooses to harass the gun owner because they MIGHT not have the gun legally, then I fully support suing his department for everything they have. When they run your license, they see the following.



If nothing shows up that would lead an officer to believe you are a criminal, then they need to leave you the hell alone about the gun.

Well, we have now left the law and gone to opinions about police conduct, i.e. what they should and should not do. I have nothing to say about that, so I will mosey on down the road and leave you to deal with the oughts and shoulds of the subject at hand.

All, I can add is that I am 73 years old and have never had a police officer treat me anyway but fairly and respect. I spent many years as a Texas lawyer, being both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. From that experience I can say that 99.9999% of the people in trouble with the law, brought it on themselves, through criminal conduct, stupidity, arrogance or rudeness.

One of the great truths in life is generally a person find what they are looking for. If a person is looking for trouble with the police, they usually find it.

[quickdraw66]

Well, we have now left the law and gone to opinions about police conduct, i.e. what they should and should not do. I have nothing to say about that, so I will mosey on down the road and leave you to deal with the oughts and shoulds of the subject at hand.

All, I can add is that I am 73 years old and have never had a police officer treat me anyway but fairly and respect. I spent many years as a Texas lawyer, being both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. From that experience I can say that 99.9999% of the people in trouble with the law, brought it on themselves, through criminal conduct, stupidity, arrogance or rudeness.

One of the great truths in life is generally a person find what they are looking for. If a person is looking for trouble with the police, they usually find it.

I'd say your numbers are off. The police are killing innocent people left and right. Want to know something really messed up? You, an innocent law abiding citizen are more likely to be killed by the police in this country than by a terrorist. A report for 2013 shows that only 17 non military US citizens have been killed world wide by terrorists in 2013. I could easily find twice that number of cases where the police messed up and killed an innocent person. The more this kind of BS goes on, the less people respect the police community as a whole. Ignoring the problem and just blaming the civilian for everything just allows it to get worse.

[Char-Gar]

I'd say your numbers are off. The police are killing innocent people left and right. Want to know something really messed up? You, an innocent law abiding citizen are more likely to be killed by the police in this country than by a terrorist. A report for 2013 shows that only 17 non military US citizens have been killed world wide by terrorists in 2013. I could easily find twice that number of cases where the police messed up and killed an innocent person. The more this kind of BS goes on, the less people respect the police community as a whole. Ignoring the problem and just blaming the civilian for everything just allows it to get worse.

The police are killing innocent people right and left, really? That sounds like urban ghetto stuff to me or at least an irrational anti-police bias.

[quickdraw66]

The police are killing innocent people right and left, really? That sounds like urban ghetto stuff to me or at least an irrational anti-police bias.

No, that would be called living in reality and not a fantasy world where the police never make mistakes.

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

I think handling the firearm in a traffic stop is a bad idea , leave it holstered , in the console , glove box where ever it is , criminals are not going to tell you they have a gun and honest people aren't really the issue are they, hands should stay on the wheel passengers should keep hands visible.

I make photo copies of my registration and insurance card and keep 2-3 sets in the car, so that if my gun is in the glove box I don't have to go looking there for my registration I can grab the one in the console or map pocket

I have been pulled over a few times the first thing I do when I come to a stop is toss my wallet on the dash , then roll down my window and place my hands on the wheel and keep them there at 10 and 2 , if you keep your hands visible you limit the chance of a bad encounter with law enforcement

[NavyVet1959]

I can remember when the preferred reaction to being stopped was to get out of your vehicle. The idea was that the officer could see you and you did not have access to any weapons you might have in the car. I'm not sure when it changed to keeping your hands on the steering wheel though.

My biggest concern (other than doing nothing that would cause the officer to panic and shoot me by mistake) is to get far enough off the road that we will be relatively safe from being hit by another car. Those strobe lights blind people and even if the other driver is sober, are a danger to any vehicle stopped along the side of the road. As such, I try to get all the way on the grass if at all possible while also leaving room for the officer to stand beside the car on the grass.

[quickdraw66]

No, that would be called living in reality and not a fantasy world where the police never make mistakes.

Just to clarify my position, I do not think all officers are bad. I think most are good, and my job puts me in a position where I work with them and seem them on a pretty much daily basis. I have family that are officers, and I have never personally had a bad experience with one. That does not however mean I am blind to the way things are going. I fully believe that we (not just civilians, but good cops too) should bring these bad cops out into the open and condemn them. They need to be removed from their position of power, and in many cases they need to be in prison for their crimes. If you think that there are not a lot of bad cops out there doing bad things, your lying to yourself because there are. The sooner they are removed from power, the sooner relations between officers and civilians can be fixed.

[Riverpigusmc]

Friend of mine is with Texas Carry, and her testimony was paramount in getting open carry/campus carry passed in Texas. When she lived here in Florida, she sued UNF, which brought about the fact we can now keep pistols in our vehicles while we work here on campus in Florida.

Just an aside to previous post, police officers are "civilians" unless they are MP's or veterans. Pet peeve. Sorry

[Char-Gar]

No, that would be called living in reality and not a fantasy world where the police never make mistakes.

There is allot of daylight between "police never make mistakes" and "police are killing innocent people right and left".

[Lonegun1894]

During a traffic stop, unless they run your license and it pulls up any felonies or warrants, or unless you are suspected of actually committing some crime, it should be no different than if you have a CHL. The proper procedure should be to take the gun, run the license, give the gun back and send them on their way without giving them a hard time. Easy in, easy out, and the officer doesn't escalate a situation for stupid reasons.

I have stopped A LOT of armed people, both CHLs and non-CHLs, and I have NEVER taken anyone's gun unless I had reason to arrest them, and the only person I have ever charged with any form of weapons possession charge was one genius who decided to run for the bathroom and attempt to FLUSH his full-size pistol and almost 2 dozen baggies of meth when two of us entered his house while executing a warrant. He had had several felony convictions already, including multiple shootings, so I doubt anyone here would want to live next door to him and his house/business location or to have your loved ones around him knowing he was armed. Now I have seen many instances where I may have seen a bulge or something similar in places where the person would have been in violation if I had known for a fact that they were armed, but since they weren't breaking any other laws and I didn't ask if that bulge was in fact a weapon or a cell phone for example, and told them I'm not asking and don't want to know, but that if it was a weapon, it would be illegal to have in said location (usually a hospital here in town), but for them to have a nice day, and I walked away each time before they could say anything I didn't want to hear.

I don't see a problem with anyone being armed as long as they aren't trying to harm me or anyone else. Here is the way I see it, everyone is armed at all times unless or until proven otherwise. If someone tries to draw a gun on me, I will deal with the situation regardless of if the person has a CHL or not, or is a convicted felon of not. I have never had a problem of any kind with a CHL holder yet, and don't expect to either.

[Lonegun1894]

"Your name and aliases; your Social Security number; where you live; when you were born; the color of your skin and eyes; any scars, tattoos, or identifying marks; your height, vision, and gender; what kind of car you drive, whether it's a stolen vehicle, and your license and plate numbers; your traffic violation history; your local, state, and federal criminal history; and your fingerprints "

That's almost funny, cause at my agency, I get told weather your DL is valid/suspended/revoked, if you have a CHL, and if you have a warrant out for you. The rest of the info you listed I have to specifically ask for, and have only a radio for them to tell me, so I won't be getting fingerprints. We do not have computers in our cars though, so a bit behind the times--and I like it that way. I'd rather be paying attention to the person I am speaking to than typing away on a computer.

[quickdraw66]

There is allot of daylight between "police never make mistakes" and "police are killing innocent people right and left".
This from the person who just said that 99.9999% of the time its not the officers fault? Yeah, that seems realistic. :sarcasm:

[quickdraw66]

I have stopped A LOT of armed people, both CHLs and non-CHLs, and I have NEVER taken anyone's gun unless I had reason to arrest them, and the only person I have ever charged with any form of weapons possession charge was one genius who decided to run for the bathroom and attempt to FLUSH his full-size pistol and almost 2 dozen baggies of meth when two of us entered his house while executing a warrant. He had had several felony convictions already, including multiple shootings, so I doubt anyone here would want to live next door to him and his house/business location or to have your loved ones around him knowing he was armed. Now I have seen many instances where I may have seen a bulge or something similar in places where the person would have been in violation if I had known for a fact that they were armed, but since they weren't breaking any other laws and I didn't ask if that bulge was in fact a weapon or a cell phone for example, and told them I'm not asking and don't want to know, but that if it was a weapon, it would be illegal to have in said location (usually a hospital here in town), but for them to have a nice day, and I walked away each time before they could say anything I didn't want to hear.

I don't see a problem with anyone being armed as long as they aren't trying to harm me or anyone else. Here is the way I see it, everyone is armed at all times unless or until proven otherwise. If someone tries to draw a gun on me, I will deal with the situation regardless of if the person has a CHL or not, or is a convicted felon of not. I have never had a problem of any kind with a CHL holder yet, and don't expect to either.

You are one of the good ones. I fully agree with everything in your post.

[quickdraw66]

"Your name and aliases; your Social Security number; where you live; when you were born; the color of your skin and eyes; any scars, tattoos, or identifying marks; your height, vision, and gender; what kind of car you drive, whether it's a stolen vehicle, and your license and plate numbers; your traffic violation history; your local, state, and federal criminal history; and your fingerprints "

That's almost funny, cause at my agency, I get told weather your DL is valid/suspended/revoked, if you have a CHL, and if you have a warrant out for you. The rest of the info you listed I have to specifically ask for, and have only a radio for them to tell me, so I won't be getting fingerprints. We do not have computers in our cars though, so a bit behind the times--and I like it that way. I'd rather be paying attention to the person I am speaking to than typing away on a computer.
Different agency policies maybe?

[Lonegun1894]

This from the person who just said that 99.9999% of the time its not the officers fault? Yeah, that seems realistic. :sarcasm:

He did qualify his statement with in his experience, and we all have different experiences. I wish I could say I have never seen a bad cop, but I have helped make sure 3 bad ones lost their badges. Now that is a drop in the bucket and insignificant in comparison to how many I know, but it is the bad ones that give those of us who are trying to do the job right a bad name, so one is one too many. I still think most officers are good people doing their best to do the job and help their communities, but I only ever remember hearing of one guy who walked on water, and I'm not him. I have definitely made mistakes, but I also know I have never shot an innocent person, regardless if their political views leaned left or right. :)

[Lonegun1894]

Different agency policies maybe?

Maybe. To be honest, I think I get what I need as things are, cause frankly, I could care less if you got a speeding ticket ten years ago or got arrested for a joint at Woodstock. If I have reason to dig deeper into the situation, I will ask for the extra info, but most times, I just don't need it.

[TXGunNut]

There's already a known issue in Texas (has been for years) with a VERY liberal DA and Judges in Harris Country (city of Houston) where they have been ILLEGALLY locking up CCW holders who are legal in carrying. They seize everything, throw the person in jail, then by the time the person wins the case "whoopsie" everything was already sold at auction or destroyed in the case of the firearm. Then you will need the states permission to sue them..... I had been hoping for a LONG time that Rick Perry (and now Greg Abbott) will step in and do something, but last I heard it was still a "known issue"

GoodOlBoy


Good to know, I spend time in Harris County from time to time and don't need trouble away from home. My brother lives in Harris County and is kicking around a CHL. I've been carrying concealed for almost 35 years as a LEO and later as a CHL and only a hug (or a pat-down) will find my 45 (or is it my 380?) so I don't worry about it much.

[TXGunNut]

During a traffic stop, unless they run your license and it pulls up any felonies or warrants, or unless you are suspected of actually committing some crime, it should be no different than if you have a CHL. The proper procedure should be to take the gun, run the license, give the gun back and send them on their way without giving them a hard time. Easy in, easy out, and the officer doesn't escalate a situation for stupid reasons.

I never took a gun from a CHL during a traffic stop or interview, never had one taken from me as a CHL after I retired. There's simply no need, IMHO. As an old-school LEO I was taught to assume everyone was armed but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. These days if I'm asked to disarm I'll politely ask if he understands 1911 and will unload and make safe or teach him how to do so, if necessary. Safety first, good manners always a good strategy as well.

[quickdraw66]

I've heard of some LEOs temporarily taking possession of the gun, but it seems like most don't. The law allows for that doesn't it?

[Lonegun1894]

The law in Texas allows a LEO to disarm a CHL. Catch is that the LEO must return the CHLs weapon and ammo upon termination of the stop UNLESS the CHL gets arrested. None of the stuff I used to hear about someone getting stopped with a gun and being told to come by the office to pick it up days later is legal anymore. I also heard of a few that would disassemble your gun and hand you back a bag of parts so they would have time to be somewhere else by the time you got it assembled. I have a problem with that one too.

Not a whole lot of CHLs get arrested though. I haven't seen it happen yet and hope I don't.

[TXGunNut]

Different agency policies maybe?


I've been out of LE for ten years and quite frankly I feel like an outsider. Many national stories about cops shooting unarmed attackers. In my day I simply subdued them and placed them in restraints. (Model 90's, 100's, whatever.) I'm 6'3", was built like an offensive lineman and enjoyed wrestling in high school. No biggie. Even arrested a couple of juiced-up body-builder combatants once, but that's another topic.
I think the mentality has changed. I loved a good scuffle, today's cops may see it as too risky. I understand. They have no idea who they're tangling with. Come to think of it, neither did I.
My point? Cops generally have no idea who they're talking to. You have precious few seconds to convince them that you're one of the "good guys". A CHL goes a long ways down that road.

[Char-Gar]

The law in Texas has changed a little since the CHL came into being. At first, you were required to tell a police officer at a traffic stop that you had a CHL and show him the license. They had the option to request the gun or not. But, the law has changed in that a Texas CHL holder is no longer required to show the license to the officers. When they run you DL, it will show up that you have a CHL.

The officers have always had the option to disarm a holder for their own safety, although it is rare that they do it. I only had it happen to me once, although I did ask if they wanted the weapon. Coming accross the desolate King Ranch one night a female DPS officer pulled me over. She was alone and did request my handgun, which she took back to her car with her to check me out. When she asked for it, I asked is she wanted me to unload it. She said no, she would do that, just hand it to her butt first, which I did. I figured she did not want me handling the gun in the car for fear I might turn it on her. She returned it unloaded along with the mag and the round that had been in the chamber. I reloaded the SIG P220 before going on my way.

She was polite, professional, but terse. I have noticed that female officers tend to try and project a no nonsense image more than male officers.

I have only encountered one officer that was a real sarcastic AH, and that was a New Mexico State Police guy. I guess Moma burned his toast that morning. That was before there was such a thing as a CHL. I had a handgun in my car, which was legal in New Mexico. He didn't ask about a gun and I didn't volunteer the information to him. To be honest, it didn't occur to me.

[Char-Gar]

I've been out of LE for ten years and quite frankly I feel like an outsider. Many national stories about cops shooting unarmed attackers. In my day I simply subdued them and placed them in restraints. (Model 90's, 100's, whatever.) I'm 6'3", was built like an offensive lineman and enjoyed wrestling in high school. No biggie. Even arrested a couple of juiced-up body-builder combatants once, but that's another topic.
I think the mentality has changed. I loved a good scuffle, today's cops may see it as too risky. I understand. They have no idea who they're tangling with. Come to think of it, neither did I.
My point? Cops generally have no idea who they're talking to. You have precious few seconds to convince them that you're one of the "good guys". A CHL goes a long ways down that road.

I only know one guy that I consider a "bad cop". While with the Houston Police Department he shot and killed three people, on different occasions, none of which had a gun. In each case he was no billed by the Grand Jury, as he had some BS story about how he was in fear of his life and thought they were reaching for a weapon. Even though no billed on the last killing, the HPD had enough and fired him. He went to work for a county Sherriff's Office where he almost beat to death two Hispanic males. That time they jerked his badge for good.

He was a body builder and all pumped up on steroids. Most people figured his conduct was an example of "roid rage". I have known the guy for years, and avoid him whenever I can. He is subject to all kinds of wide emotional swings. People like that make me nervous as you never know what will set them off. He is just not a stable person and should never had had a gun or a badge.

[quickdraw66]

I only know one guy that I consider a "bad cop". While with the Houston Police Department he shot and killed three people, on different occasions, none of which had a gun. In each case he was no billed by the Grand Jury, as he had some BS story about how he was in fear of his life and thought they were reaching for a weapon.

That seems to be what all of them claim now when they shoot an unarmed person. There are very few instances where that would actually be justified like if they are actually attacking the officer or trying to get the officer's gun like in Darren Wilson's case. Some have shot people for running...

[NavyVet1959]

I've been out of LE for ten years and quite frankly I feel like an outsider. Many national stories about cops shooting unarmed attackers. In my day I simply subdued them and placed them in restraints. (Model 90's, 100's, whatever.) I'm 6'3", was built like an offensive lineman and enjoyed wrestling in high school. No biggie. Even arrested a couple of juiced-up body-builder combatants once, but that's another topic.
I think the mentality has changed. I loved a good scuffle, today's cops may see it as too risky. I understand. They have no idea who they're tangling with. Come to think of it, neither did I.

Thanks to the blood born diseases that will eventually kill you these days (e.g. AIDS), I can see the hesitation to get into a scuffle that could result in blood.

[quickdraw66]

Thanks to the blood born diseases that will eventually kill you these days (e.g. AIDS), I can see the hesitation to get into a scuffle that could result in blood.

They have a tazer, and pepper spray. The gun is far from the only option they have.

[NavyVet1959]

They have a tazer, and pepper spray. The gun is far from the only option they have.

A taser is a "not usually legal" weapon, it's definitely not a "non-lethal" one. I have not heard of any deaths caused by pepper spray, but supposedly there have been a couple. Personally, I wish they would sell the raw ingredient in the pepper spray in bottles for those of us who need a bit of an extra kick in our hot sauces.

[Ravenhawk57]

A taser is a "not usually legal" weapon, it's definitely not a "non-lethal" one. I have not heard of any deaths caused by pepper spray, but supposedly there have been a couple. Personally, I wish they would sell the raw ingredient in the pepper spray in bottles for those of us who need a bit of an extra kick in our hot sauces.
Yes you can get it in a bottle, I forget how its ordered but I will get you a bottle and send it to you may take me a couple weeks. Its not for the weak of heart tho. Only takes a couple drops for a large batch of chili. I eat a combination of japalenpo and scott bonnets 50/50 ground in a blender. Pretty warm.:lol:

[quickdraw66]

A taser is a "not usually legal" weapon, it's definitely not a "non-lethal" one. I have not heard of any deaths caused by pepper spray, but supposedly there have been a couple. Personally, I wish they would sell the raw ingredient in the pepper spray in bottles for those of us who need a bit of an extra kick in our hot sauces.
Less lethal is better than super lethal. I'll take getting tased to getting shot 3-4 times any day.

[Lonegun1894]

The law in Texas has changed a little since the CHL came into being. At first, you were required to tell a police officer at a traffic stop that you had a CHL and show him the license. They had the option to request the gun or not. But, the law has changed in that a Texas CHL holder is no longer required to show the license to the officers. When they run you DL, it will show up that you have a CHL.




This is incorrect. You still have to show both DL and CHL when asked for any form of ID by an LEO if you are a CHL. What has changed is that before 2007, not showing your CHL could get your CHL suspended. In '07, they changed the law to allow a non-CHL to keep a handgun in their vehicle, and since a non-CHL isn't required to notify the LEO of the weapon unless asked, they did away with the penalty (suspension) if a CHL holder fails to show the CHL. You're still required to show it, but the penalty has been eliminated in case you don't show it. I know it is a technicality, but trying to keep things accurate so people fully understand what the law actually says.

[Lonegun1894]

They have a tazer, and pepper spray. The gun is far from the only option they have.

What if I told you that I have neither on my belt? I keep a can of pepper spray in the car, but not on my person. As to the taser, I don't trust them a bit. I have used them, and had them fail twice. First time, the suspect tore out the darts and drew a gun and was dealt with. The second time, I almost ate a suspects knife cause the taser fired the darts but failed to give any electric shock. There will not be a third time for one to fail me after the first two almost got me killed. Besides, as has been said, a taser is "less lethal, it is NOT "non lethal". What that means is that if I am justified using a taser, I am justified in using a gun, and I KNOW my gun works every single time. Now I hope not to have to use it again, and have had MANY instances where I would have been justified in firing my weapon but didn't, but I will not risk my life or the lives of others by using a gadget that has failed me twice now in life-threatening situations on the off chance that the taser (that may kill them anyway) will work this time. Also, keep in mind that most people survive gunshot wounds from handguns nowadays, so my handgun is also "less lethal" than a shotgun or rifle, for example. I don't care what weapon/tool we discuss, any and all of them fit on a gradual scale, cause there is no guarantee that any of them will or will not be lethal. Last time I saw a taser used, the person who got tased died, but from what we were told later was that he had enough meth in his system that he was a dead man walking anyway, but who knows. I did not tase him, but was on my way to back up the officer who tased him, and was coming over a hill just in time to see the taser get drawn and fired. I was still about 125-150 yards away when this happened, and the man was dead by the time I pulled up. Like I said, I have several reasons for not trusting and not using tasers.

[quickdraw66]

What if I told you that I have neither on my belt? I keep a can of pepper spray in the car, but not on my person. As to the taser, I don't trust them a bit. I have used them, and had them fail twice. First time, the suspect tore out the darts and drew a gun and was dealt with. The second time, I almost ate a suspects knife cause the taser fired the darts but failed to give any electric shock. There will not be a third time for one to fail me after the first two almost got me killed. Besides, as has been said, a taser is "less lethal, it is NOT "non lethal". What that means is that if I am justified using a taser, I am justified in using a gun, and I KNOW my gun works every single time. Now I hope not to have to use it again, and have had MANY instances where I would have been justified in firing my weapon but didn't, but I will not risk my life or the lives of others by using a gadget that has failed me twice now in life-threatening situations on the off chance that the taser (that may kill them anyway) will work this time. Also, keep in mind that most people survive gunshot wounds from handguns nowadays, so my handgun is also "less lethal" than a shotgun or rifle, for example. I don't care what weapon/tool we discuss, any and all of them fit on a gradual scale, cause there is no guarantee that any of them will or will not be lethal. Last time I saw a taser used, the person who got tased died, but from what we were told later was that he had enough meth in his system that he was a dead man walking anyway, but who knows. I did not tase him, but was on my way to back up the officer who tased him, and was coming over a hill just in time to see the taser get drawn and fired. I was still about 125-150 yards away when this happened, and the man was dead by the time I pulled up. Like I said, I have several reasons for not trusting and not using tasers.
I'm not talking about situations where your life is in immediate danger. I'm talking about the situations that don't call for that kind of force. There was a recent shooting out East. I think it was in Florida or Georgia. Anyway, the officer got into a minor tussle with a suspect and tased him. The suspect immediately turned around and tried to run. The officer opened fire and shot that man several times in the back, killing him. He tried to use the "I felt threatened" excuse, but unfortunately for him someone had the whole thing on video. He's been charged with murder. That's the sort of force I'm talking about. Its completely unacceptable, and is unfortunately becoming more common. Most officers won't do that sort of thing, but enough of them are that its giving all cops a bad name. They guy who recorded the video didn't report it at first because he feared that the police would retaliate against him. That's how bad relations between civilians and LEOs are getting. It shouldn't be like that.

Oh and that suspect was not a violent criminal. He owed money for child support and feared going to jail so he ran (on foot) after getting pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Shooting him was not necessary at all.

[Lonegun1894]

Quickdraw66,
I don't know enough about that case to comment, but based on what very little I know about that one specific incident, in this case, I agree with you. Like I said though, if I am not justified in shooting a criminal for whatever they are doing in that instant, I am also not justified in tasing him for the same exact thing. The taser is NOT non-lethal. Unlikely to kill, yes, but if you or I or one of our loved ones is the one that dies due to getting tased, that "less lethal" moniker isn't much consolation. And I have been tased. I didn't think it was all that bad. In fact, I bet a friend of mine that I would be able to get hit with the darts, and while getting shocked, turn, draw a soft-air pistol (didn't want to use an actual firearm for obvious reasons), aim, and hit him center-mass. Now my draw was a bit jerky and slow, and I didn't hit the button on his shirt I was aiming at, but I was only an inch off. I wanted to prove to both of us that it was possible to do it, and did so.

In case anyone doesn't know, a taser is set to continue shocking the suspect for either 3 or 5 seconds, but will continue to do so for as long as the trigger is being pulled. It took me 8 seconds to draw, aim, and fire while being tased, so my partner in this experiment kept the trigger pressed for as long as it took me. The instructions I gave him were to stay on the trigger until I either dropped the gun or shot him with the soft-air gun.

[quickdraw66]

I wasn't talking about using it in a life or death situation where the suspect is armed and dangerous. Lethal force is called for and acceptable in those situations.

Unrelated to the taser discussion, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. The officer handled that situation very poorly by assaulting a 14 year old girl and pulling his gun on two unarmed teens who came to her defense. That whole incident could have easily been avoided. (I'm not saying all the kids there were innocent, only that the officer involved did not handle the situation well)

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-texas-police-pool-party-video-205421706.html

[Lonegun1894]

I wasn't talking about using it in a life or death situation where the suspect is armed and dangerous. Lethal force is called for and acceptable in those situations.



So what non-life threatening situation would it be acceptable to use a taser (which we agree CAN possibly cause death)? I see using a taser as the same as if I had shot someone in the arm or leg because while it might kill them, it more than likely that wouldn't be a fatal wound.

As to that video you brought up, I don't know what he was trying to arrest her for, but she resisted and resisting arrest is against the law here in Texas--as I would assume it probably is in Oklahoma too where you are. It is one of those things where it is much better to argue your case as a reasonable person in a court room than to get in a physical altercation on the side of the road or in this case, a lawn, like she chose to do. Not knowing the details of what happened and why, and unless you were there (and I know I wasn't) then neither of us knows all the details, so we both have to remember that the video doesn't show everything that we need to know to make an impartial judgement. Having said that, I don't blame him for stopping the two guys heading for the two of them, because he couldn't have known their intentions and you and I would both have at least considered them a possible threat if they had been coming at us. I'm not saying he was right or wrong, just saying that I understand his actions in making the arrest and stopping the two guys attempting to interfere with his making an arrest, so lets let the jury, you know, the people who will have a lot more info about this case than either you or I, decide who was right and who was wrong. As things stand right now, he did what he thought was right, and so did the girl, and you and I are just the peanut gallery making noise that doesn't matter one bit in the end.

[TheDoctor]

I just want to know when this turned from a Texas open carry thread, into a never ending bad cop bashing thread. I think we can all agree that there are bad cops, and there are good cops. You will always be able to dig up more negative or more controversial info than you will good stuff. Its the way we have allowed the media to work. People like a little blood mixed with the ink. Someone having warrants and running from the police has absolutely nothing to do with the tx open carry. So, please, if someone insists on pursuing this topic, could you put in its own thread? Thank you very much.

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

Not a whole lot of CHLs get arrested though. I haven't seen it happen yet and hope I don't.

not everyone understands that , while the Wisconsin law is specifically written to keep any stats on WIS CCL holders being run , like % male vs female average age , average ethnicity or other things they may only release the number issued to date. since we started with 1 and worked up if you apply for one and get t you will have a very good idea of how many have been issued to date

however Michigan ran some numbers a few years back and found that something like 1 in 5 people in Michigan was a felon yet only about 1 in 10 CCP holders received even a traffic citation annually and between 0 and 2 CCP holders was convicted of an unjustified homicide in a year depending on the year , this is hundreds of thousands of people, think about it, have you ever heard of a good size city say 250,000 not having a single murder or negligent death in a year , I live in a very small town and we can't seem to go 6 months without a vehicular homicide by DUI within a few miles of town. can you imagine a city of only CCL or CCP or CHL or LCH holders with number were they are you probably would need about 25 police for a city of 100,000 and that wouldbe to deal with writing up acidents and to have enough to manage traffic around parades , on second thought they would need an Auxilary to handle parades as in a town of 50,000 I have seen a more than 25 cops working one 10k run just to manage traffic.

these are the people we should want as neighbors.

[Lonegun1894]

Link to the list kept by TX DPS from 1996-2013 (latest available statistics) on conviction rates:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

For 2013, the very bottom line lists total covictions in TX for all crimes combined, then how many of those were CHL holders, and then percentage of all convictions to show what percent went to CHLs:

Total Offenses CHL Holders Percentage of total
50,869 158 0.3106%

[Lonegun1894]

That didn't copy and paste right.

Anyway, 50,869 total offenses in 2013. Out of those, 158 were committed by CHL holders, which is 0.3106% of the total crime.

[quickdraw66]

I just want to know when this turned from a Texas open carry thread, into a never ending bad cop bashing thread. I think we can all agree that there are bad cops, and there are good cops. You will always be able to dig up more negative or more controversial info than you will good stuff. Its the way we have allowed the media to work. People like a little blood mixed with the ink. Someone having warrants and running from the police has absolutely nothing to do with the tx open carry. So, please, if someone insists on pursuing this topic, could you put in its own thread? Thank you very much.

If you think this is cop bashing, you have absolutely no idea what cop bashing is. No one here is saying that all cops are bad, only that some are bad or that some do not handle situations well and cause them to become much worse than they would have been. Even the officers in this thread are saying that. As for when the topic change, no idea.

[quickdraw66]

That didn't copy and paste right.

Anyway, 50,869 total offenses in 2013. Out of those, 158 were committed by CHL holders, which is 0.3106% of the total crime.

I read somewhere that there are about 826,000 CCLs in Texas. That would mean only 0.019% of CCLs violated the law in some way. So much for the antigunners' claim that there would be blood in the streets and shooting at every corner.

[white eagle]

here in Wis it was just the opposite
we could open carry and just recently got the option to conceal carry
but we do need a permit to do so

[TXGunNut]

I wasn't talking about using it in a life or death situation where the suspect is armed and dangerous. Lethal force is called for and acceptable in those situations.

Unrelated to the taser discussion, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. The officer handled that situation very poorly by assaulting a 14 year old girl and pulling his gun on two unarmed teens who came to her defense. That whole incident could have easily been avoided. (I'm not saying all the kids there were innocent, only that the officer involved did not handle the situation well)

http://news.yahoo.com/mckinney-texas-police-pool-party-video-205421706.html

First of all, this post is off-topic. Second, you're wrong about the McKinney officer. Please take this nonsense to the Pit, pardon me if I decline to join you there.

[quickdraw66]

First of all, this post is off-topic. Second, you're wrong about the McKinney officer. Please take this nonsense to the Pit, pardon me if I decline to join you there.
I don't think I am. He handled the situation pretty poorly. As for being off topic, if that bothered you so much why did you revive a conversation that had been dead for days? I was no longer discussing it nor was anyone else in this thread. It was dead and was going to stay dead until you brought it back up.

[bearcove]

I think the best option is you can carry PERIOD DOT. As my texas wife would say, Or Alaska law. Open or concealed or anywhere in between, otherwise it becomes a judgement call as to weather or not it was proper.

[NavyVet1959]

Well, the governor signed Open Carry (HB 910) and Campus Carry (SB 11) into law on Saturday (6/13/2015). Too bad they do not immediately go into effect though.

Of particular note is the fact that when he did the photo op for the signing, he chose to do it at a gun range.

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/06/13/gov-abbott-signs-open-carry-campus-carry-into-law/71181948/



AUSTIN -- Gov. Greg Abbott signed the open carry and campus carry bills into law Saturday.

Abbott signed HB 910 (Phillips, R-Sherman; Estes, R-Wichita Falls) and SB 11 (Birdwell, R-Granbury; Fletcher, R-Cypress), which expand Texans' Second Amendment rights. Both bills implement proposals in the Governor's Bicentennial Blueprint.
HB 910, known as "open carry," authorizes individuals with a license to carry a holstered handgun openly in all locations that allow the licensed carrying of a concealed handgun. SB 11, known as "campus carry" authorizes individuals with a license to carry a concealed handgun on campuses of public institutions of higher education.

"Today I am proud to expand liberty in the Lone Star State," said Abbott. "By signing these bills into law, Texans can be assured that their Second Amendment rights will be stronger and more secure than ever before."

The open carry bill, House Bill 910, passed the House by a 102-43 vote May 29. Senate Bill 11, which will allow campus carry, passed one day before the end of the legislative session.

The bills will allow licensed owners to carry handguns openly in a holster.

Open carry is set to take effect Jan. 1, 2016 and campus carry is set to go into effect August 1, 2016.
Some businesses can still prohibit handguns as long as a certain signs are posted.


https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/13/abbott-signs-open-carry-bill



Calling it a salute to the “genius” of the country’s founding fathers, Gov. Greg Abbott (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/greg-abbott/) on Saturday signed legislation allowing Texans with licenses to openly tote their handguns in a hip or shoulder holster.

The signing of the open-carry bill, House Bill 910 by state Rep. Larry Phillips (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/larry-phillips/), R-Sherman, came at Red’s Indoor Range, a popular gun store and shooting range in Pflugerville. Abbott said he would also sign legislation later in the day that requires the state’s public universities and colleges to allow handguns on campus buildings and in dorms.

“There is nothing more important in democracy than the voice of the people stepping up and saying ‘We expect the Constitution of the United States of America to be our guiding doctrine,’” he said.

The ceremony came on the same day (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-shooting.html) Dallas police said a gunman in an armored vehicle opened fire at the police headquarters and then fled to a local restaurant, where he was shot and believed killed.

Abbott said criticism of expanded gun rights in Texas in wake of the incident was unwarranted.

“The event in Dallas was an isolated incident by someone who had serious mental challenges, as well as a possible criminal background,” he said. “It is no indication whatsoever of empowering people with their Second Amendment right. In fact, the contrary is true.”
(http://www.texastribune.org/directory/greg-abbott/)
Abbott heaped praise on the National Rifle Association and its Texas affiliate, the Texas State Rifle Association, which along with GOP lawmakers he said were instrumental in getting the bill to his desk.

“I don’t think there are any groups in this state — or in this nation — who worked as profoundly to ensure that the Constitution is lived up to,” he said.

On the so-called campus-carry bill Abbott said he would sign later, the governor pointed to other states where similar measures have passed as proof that concerns of increased violence are overblown.

“In general, what we’ve seen in the states that have campus carry, there haven’t been any problems on those campuses,” he said.

That bill, by state Sen. Brian Birdwell (http://www.texastribune.org/directory/brian-birdwell/), R-Granbury, allows students who are 21 and older and hold a concealed handgun license to carry their firearms on public campuses. Private colleges will be allowed to opt out of the policy.

Under the final version of the bill, public universities and colleges will be able to establish rules on where handguns can be carried and how they're stored.

“I think that the way the Legislature worked this out [that] we will see that campus carry in the state of Texas will also pose no more problems,” Abbott said.


I'm curious why the explicit mention of "hip or shoulder holster" though. Did they intentionally mean to prohibit people from open carrying in shorts with ankle holsters? And, if so, why? :)

I guess it saves us from having to see something like this though:

http://i1105.photobucket.com/albums/h342/thedeadduck/anklehlstrfashion_zpsc0e8b30f.jpg

And what about the chest rig type holsters? Would those be classified as a "shoulder holster"? One could argue that a chest rig type holster is more practical for carrying inside a vehicle. They're more practical for hunting though.

[popper]

New Mexico State Police guy I think I met the same guy. As for the pool party incident, officer was approached from the back side by two big kids. Holstered the gun when he saw it was safe. I cant fault him for the weapon handling. I also haven't heard of any investigations of the death threats he has received, stated reason he quit. IMHO, city pulled a Baltimore and threw him under the bus.