How do Police Officers feel about CHL's

Always entertaining...

but I hope there are some officers out there that are willing to express there opinion

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, of the 20-some responses, three are from sworn officers. It seems there are an amazing number of mind-readers on THR.

The truth is that it doesn't make any more difference what they think about CCW than it does how I feel about the Federal tax code.

Click to expand...

Not really correct. Peace officers in Texas have a large amount of discretion on how best to enforce laws. From the CHL's perspective, its always best to not break the law. That's the obvious way to avoid trouble. But once a law has been violated, a peace officer can be lenient or tough and still be within their authority under the Code of Criminal Procedures.

For example, let's say I get a call that there is a man with a concealed weapon at a bar. I go and I find the guy. He's a CHL armed in an establishment that makes 51% of its revenue by selling liquor by the drink (i.e. a Bar ). I can: arrest for the CHL violation, arrest for something else, not arrest but file for a warrant, not arrest but get the guy out of the bar. What I actually do will depend on the attitude and actions of the violator. But you can see how different peace officers will make different decisions based on their view of CHL's.

Regards
--Dan

My cousin is a cop in suburban Pittsburgh and he's more of a gun nut that I am. I suspect that he became a cop just so he could carry a gun at work.

When I see him, the talk always turns quickly to guns; what we've acquired since we last talked, that we're currently carrying, pros and cons of each, etc. I haven't seen him since the Heller decision. That should be an good conversation.

Not really correct. Peace officers in Texas have a large amount of discretion on how best to enforce laws.

Click to expand...

But discretion WITHIN the law is still what the law allows.

I don't expect breaks from the police, just that they not violate the law.

Using discretion, even based on the attitude of the suspect, isn't a problem. Giving somebody a break because they're polite isn't a problem. Giving them a hard time [within the law] if they're being a jackass isn't either.

Enforcing your WHIM as law, is a BIG problem.

The latter is where virtually ALL of the worst recent open carry incidents have gone badly off the rails. If you're going to arrest somebody for something, you'd BETTER be able to go to the statute, at least after the fact, and cite the provision being violated. In WAY too many cases, not only can't the officer do that, there's simply nothing in the law even VAGUELY like what the person's being [falsely] arrested for. Take for instance the guy recently arrested for among other things "having hollowpoints" and "crossing state lines while being armed". No such laws exist in the jurisdiction where he was falsely arrested (and a magistrate SAID he was falsely arrested). I'll bet money that none of them can demonstrate that they were ever taught those "laws" in an academy class, by a supervisor, or by a prosecutor either. Clearly, the officers who arrested the man had a reckless disregard for the law and the rights of the public. They're going to pay big time for it too.

Since when is it important what your servant thinks.
Since they are public servants, and drawing their paycheck from the citizenry, policy wise they are not entitled to an opinion, they are entitled to a paycheck so long as they do the taxpayers bidding.

If they do not care for that, they can do like I did and go into another line of work.

Sam

Might want to think this over a bit.

Sam (Today, 03:12 PM) #30 says:

... they are entitled to a paycheck so long as they do the taxpayers bidding.

Click to expand...

And which taxpayers would those be, exactly?

I'm not trying to be contrary, but you might want to think about some of the implications of that PoV. It could take you to some places you'd rather not go.

regards,

GR

I had an encounter yesterday with a police chief of a small town in the panhandle of Oklahoma. I sped up about a block too soon. When he asked for my license, I showed him my permit and told him I was carrying. All he did was asked "What are you carrying?". I told him a Glock 30, which he simply replied, "Cool." He saw my VA id card and proceeded to talk about the army with me. It ended with a warning and off I went. He didn't seem to care at all that I was carrying. He also saw my hunting rifle case in the back and asked me about it. He just seemed curious. No excessive questioning or anything. All and all it was a positive experience.

I am a federal LEO. I do not think anyone should have a CHL. Of course that is because I do not think anyone should be required to obtain a license to be at liberty to exercise their rights. I am very much against gun registration, carry licenses, permits and the like. You should not need any of that in order to carry.

In fact I would like to see every able bodied person over the age of 18 being required own, qualify with, and carry a firearm; but then I guess that would volate sme other right. Oh well, it was a thought.

I am all for responsible carry though. So I would like to see people not forced but urged to get some basic training, and then to qualify at least twice yearly (qualify at any range, by any certified firerams instructor, no state certification just NRA or something like that).

All the best,
Glenn B

Since when is it important what your servant thinks.
Since they are public servants, and drawing their paycheck from the citizenry, policy wise they are not entitled to an opinion, they are entitled to a paycheck so long as they do the taxpayers bidding.

Click to expand...

Are you kiddng or are you just absolutely rude and nsulting to the nth degree when it comes to public servants. We may be public servants, but we are not your slaves as you seem to think. Can you realy be that out of touch with the reality of being a civil servant or in the military service.

I am a public servant, a federal law enforcement officer. I am entitled to my rights and liberties just as is anyone else even if I work for the government. Guess what that means, I am also entitled to form my own ideas and I can have my own opinions, and I can even write replies to highly insulting posts such as yours. I can also vote in elections - can you imagine that with me being a public servant! Also remember this - I pay taxes too, probably a lot more than many other Americans. If I pay more taxes than you, does that mean your opinmion does not matter as much as mine. Any logic in your point of view eludes me.

All the best,
Glenn B

I can only speak to one personal experience. The Glendale, AZ PD officer who pulled me over for (allegedly) speeding and weaving seemed to have no problem with it. He only asked me one perfunctory question about having weapons in my vehicle, only because (he said) he saw my CCW as I was getting out my license. Then I was let go with just a verbal warning. I cannot say whether having the CCW helped in this. It certainly didn't hurt. AZ has long allowed open carry, and CCW has been in place for a dozen years or more.

wyosasquatch said:

I talked to two officers this past week about this very subject. One was a police officer and the other was a sheriffs deputy. Both said they support concealed carry and both said they get frustrated with open carry (legal here). They didn't like open carry because it gets called in from the store or somewhere that there is a guy with a gun and all units have to respond to a legal carry.

Click to expand...

I still maintain that's an issue of not properly training and instructing the dispatchers. Police officers should respond to reports of illegal activity. If open carry is legal in a jurisdiction, when someone calls in that they saw a man with a gun, the dispatcher should ask, "What is he doing with it? Is there a crime being committed?" If the answer is (as it would be in these situations) "He has a gun in a holster on his belt," the dispatcher should simply inform the caller that it's perfectly legal and to have a nice day/evening. There is no justifiable reason to scramble the troops to investigate a report of "Suspicion of lawful activity."

Glenn Bartley said:

I am a federal LEO. I do not think anyone should have a CHL. Of course that is because I do not think anyone should be required to obtain a license to be at liberty to exercise their rights. I am very much against gun registration, carry licenses, permits and the like. You should not need any of that in order to carry.

Click to expand...

Glenn, I submit that, at least based on my experience with a couple of Federal law enforcement agencies (working with them, not for them), you are very much an exception. Most (again, in my experience) very much think that they are a class apart and above, and that the citizens who pay their salaries are serfs.

And I ain't kiddin'. It would be wonderful if more LEOs (at all levels of jurisdiction) were like you and a few others on here.

This cop thinks its stupid.


I think its stupid that you can't carry in some locations.
(Depending on the state - parks, hospitals, govt buildings, sporting events, schools, public transportation, parades, restaurants, banks, bars, airports, malls, etc.)

I have no restrictions, why should you?




I think its stupid that you have to announce yourself to any cop that approaches you.
What happens when you're with people who don't know (and shouldn't know) that you're armed?

I don't have to do that, why should you?

c1ogden wrote:

This cop thinks its stupid.


I think its stupid that you can't carry in some locations.
(Depending on the state - parks, hospitals, govt buildings, sporting events, schools, public transportation, parades, restaurants, banks, bars, airports, malls, etc.)

I have no restrictions, why should you?




I think its stupid that you have to announce yourself to any cop that approaches you.
What happens when you're with people who don't know (and shouldn't know) that you're armed?

I don't have to do that, why should you?

Click to expand...

This cop is welcome to a cup of dark roast at my house anytime he makes it through South MS.

Thanks.


-- John

I believe in reasonable restrictions.

For instance, if you should decide to buy a Solothurn 20mm anti-tank rifle, you should be cautioned strongly never to attempt to fire it from an unsupported position.

In addition, if you own an M1 Abrams main battle tank, you will be required to assist in repairing the road if your track shoes become so worn that they chew the pavement.

Finally, if the 155 howitzer of your dreams becomes yours, you should understand well that the shrapnel fan can be quite large, and only promise to fire it in the appropriate setting.

Other than that, I give no thought to it. What part of "shall not be infringed" do some people have problems with?

I have contacted many people who turned out to be carrying valid CCW permits (or as we call them in WA, CPL's). The official part of the stop takes usually about 3-5 minutes. The part where I turn off the overheads, possibly move to another location, jaw about various tasty firearms and give each other directions to our various ranges and gun clubs can take a bit longer.

Some excellent posts here. Glenn, we need more like you. And why oh why (unless NJ law requires it) do people "announce" to an LEO they encounter that they are carrying??? Or not???
Unless the LEO asks me, I'm volunteering nothing. I don't need a pat on the head, or some acknowledgement that we are somehow brothers in arms here. If the LEO is one of the "good ones," he/she will probably not even ask, and I won't tell.

I realize there is some anecdotal evidence that people were "let go with a warning" when the LEO realized they had a CCW, but I don't think this should be an opening gambit in an encounter.

In VA, I am told, at least, the database CCWs show up in is the same one as Judges, Justices of the Peace, etc. If true, I'll take that as a good sign, and keep mum until asked! Other states - other rules may apply - I feel sorry for anyone who has to live in NJ anyway!

I'm blessed to be living in Texas, but we are still working on some of the inane restrictions y'all are talking about.
As far as informing a LEO of ones CCW status, thats required during an "Official" interaction with LEO's.
Due to the nature of my work, I come in contact with quite a few, usually veteran, LEO's. I've never hears a Texas Law Dog
spout anti-CCW rgetoric. I guess I can take an informal poll and get back to y'all. I'm willing to bet that the results will show an overwhelming support for armed "Civilians".

Glen B. said:

Since when is it important what your servant thinks.
Since they are public servants, and drawing their paycheck from the citizenry, policy wise they are not entitled to an opinion, they are entitled to a paycheck so long as they do the taxpayers bidding.

Click to expand...

Are you kiddng or are you just absolutely rude and nsulting to the nth degree when it comes to public servants. We may be public servants, but we are not your slaves as you seem to think. Can you realy be that out of touch with the reality of being a civil servant or in the military service.

I am a public servant, a federal law enforcement officer. I am entitled to my rights and liberties just as is anyone else even if I work for the government. Guess what that means, I am also entitled to form my own ideas and I can have my own opinions, and I can even write replies to highly insulting posts such as yours. I can also vote in elections - can you imagine that with me being a public servant! Also remember this - I pay taxes too, probably a lot more than many other Americans. If I pay more taxes than you, does that mean your opinmion does not matter as much as mine. Any logic in your point of view eludes me.

Click to expand...

A fine counterpoint, Glenn B. I like it and certainly agree with it. Except for the strawman argument about "slaves." The poster you quoted only went as far as the term "public servant." I don't think inferring something he "seem to think" helped your otherwise very good logic. Actually, it detracted from it.

Are you kiddng or are you just absolutely rude and nsulting to the nth degree when it comes to public servants. We may be public servants, but we are not your slaves as you seem to think. Can you realy be that out of touch with the reality of being a civil servant or in the military service.

Click to expand...

Mr. Bartley,
I am not kidding or intending to be rude or insulting. I spent 2 years as a Detroit policeman and 27 years on active duty (not guard or reserve) in the military and I am well aware that you are entitled to an opinion. During all those years, I was a public servant. I am quite proud of that fact.
I clearly state the fact that your opinion is officially of no consequence. You are not an elected official and it is not your place to establish policy. It is your place to follow policy established by elected officials who are answerable to the citizens.

The most significant governmental problem we face in the United States today, is that certain persons in government at all levels think they are entitled to inject their personal opinions into their duties as they see fit, without accountability, ie.. acting as if they were the master and not the servant.
They are in fact public SERVANTS. Not slaves, public servants. Your job as a public servant, is to carry out public policy, not establish it and such, officially your personal opinion is of no consequence. Your job is to carry out the "will of the people" not to inject you own personal values and feelings into their lives. If public servants were to follow your thought to it's logical conclusion, any military member could solve our foreign affairs issues in his own way, by assassinating an offending foreign leader because he thinks it's the best solution? We have LEO's and bureaucrats doing the same thing every day, abusing citizens and denying them their freedom and causing them harm because they try to establish policy instead of carrying out policy. Thankfully they are no where near the majority. No one has insinuated that you are one of them and you should not be too hasty to come to their defense, lest you be tainted by their misbehavior. You are known by teh company you keep.

Public servants are in fact just that, servants. I spent a long time as one and never felt demeaned by it. If that term is offensive to you, then you need to go into a different line of work. You are free just like I was to seek employment in the private sector where you may publicly espouse any opinion you wish.

Sincerely,

Sam Damewood

How do Police Officers feel about CHL's

Click to expand...

Is it illegal?

NO!

Who Cares.

A deputy that shoots USPSA with us said he thinks everyone should carry a gun.

I approach everyone as if they are armed in some way, cautious not paranoid. I have no problem with citizens carrying a gun. I don't agree in a license to carry, I don't agree with a license to vote or having to show LEOs your travel permit papers.

Sam, I have no idea where you got that train of thought but it suddenly made me think of long lines of German soldiers marching with their right hand extended. I serve the public at large, I do not have to agree with everything each citizen believes. I do answer to a much higher authority than either the public or the Laws of Man.

I am a federal LEO. I do not think anyone should have a CHL. Of course that is because I do not think anyone should be required to obtain a license to be at liberty to exercise their rights. I am very much against gun registration, carry licenses, permits and the like. You should not need any of that in order to carry.

In fact I would like to see every able bodied person over the age of 18 being required own, qualify with, and carry a firearm; but then I guess that would volate sme other right. Oh well, it was a thought.

I am all for responsible carry though. So I would like to see people not forced but urged to get some basic training, and then to qualify at least twice yearly (qualify at any range, by any certified firerams instructor, no state certification just NRA or something like that).

All the best,
Glenn B

Click to expand...

Glen Bartley: If the federal government was staffed with people like you, paying my taxes would be a pleasure.

Stay safe out there.

RMD

Mr. Franklin,
I am glad that you answer to some higher authority than yourself, but as a public servant, it is not your place to make policy any more than it is that of Mr. Bartley, or myself when I was a minion of the government. It is why we have a constitution and an elected government.
Just how do you feel that being accountable to the citizenry is analogous to Nazi Germany?

I think you should re-read my post.

In my experience approxiamtely 85% of LEOs are pro 2A, with most of them being pro CCW.

All I am going to say it that its a good thing cops don't write the laws, or pass on their Constitutionality.
Now if we can just get them to remember that they are public servents and employees, we all might get along better.