Defensive Carry banner
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
In New Mexico we're not required to say anything. In fact we may carry a loaded firearm anywhere in our vehicles including on our person, without a permit. It's never been a problem here.
 
If you have illegal window tint, or commit moving traffic violations then you, by definition are not a law abiding citizen. :twak:
I have a medical excemption certificate from the State for the tinted windshield. The moving violations have been for a few miles over the speed limit, smoked license plate cover, smoked brake lights, I forgot to put the decal on the license plate to show I renewed my registration, nothing major, but I guess you are correct, I am not perfect.
I was trying to make a point that most people that get pulled over, get pulled over for something that they did wrong.
 
I think it would be in your best interest to let them know you're carrying. I've spoken with several officer buddies who have said that they would want to know upfront, if someone had a loaded firearm in their possession or vehicle during a traffic stop.
 
I just want to point out that what the head of the police union thinks is likely entirely different than the notions of actual officers. Those guys aren't cops. They're politicians.

ETA: TX-JB has already made this point. What he said!

I don't have to and won't ever voluntarily disclose my armed status. It just adds unnecessary information to the equation that most times complicates a simple interaction. Some officers are ok but there are others that fundamentally feel that citizens should not be armed. These are the type that will hem you up for forty five minutes while they run the serials from your gun to supposedly make sure it isn't stolen. Wanna do my VIN and the ESN on my blackberry too? Then, when it comes back clean, they start in with the questions of why are you armed? It's nothing more than a guise for harassment. No thanks.

But to the question of whether it makes LE less safe, the police union doesn't have to look far to study how many LE are shot by licensed carriers in states that don't require disclosure (zilch) to see that it makes no difference whatsoever.
 
Notification is nonsense.

Here in Ohio, a guy was charged and tried because he didn't notify for 51 seconds after the cops themselves tried to prevent him from notifying during a felony stop. He was of course acquitted, and will probably pursue civil suits against the city and the officers involved.

It's things like that which cause gun owners to not care one whit for the cop's "ease".
 
I think it would be in your best interest to let them know you're carrying. I've spoken with several officer buddies who have said that they would want to know upfront, if someone had a loaded firearm in their possession or vehicle during a traffic stop.
A guy from North Carolina notified some Fairfax County Virginia cops when he didn't need to. They falsely arrested him for "having hollowpoints", "crossing state lines with a loaded gun", and "carrying a concealed weapon [with a valid credential recognized by Virginia]". They tried to unlawfully keep his gun after he was freed by a magistrate.

Now explain why anybody would WANT to notify if they weren't REQUIRED to.
 
But to the question of whether it makes LE less safe, the police union doesn't have to look far to study how many LE are shot by licensed carriers in states that don't require disclosure (zilch) to see that it makes no difference whatsoever.
and to look at the stats showing all crimes committed by license holders
its just a talking point, they have no proof whatsoever because there isn't any
 
As is often the case, some hypothetical that never has happened that the anti-gun statements draw from concerning CC permit holders.

In contrast, many LEO do some pretty dangerous actions, from time to time, when the CC permit holder informs the LEO that they have a firearm.

PS- In MI you are required to inform, I have been stopped, and being a law-abiding CC permit holder always inform.
 
These are the type that will hem you up for forty five minutes while they run the serials from your gun to supposedly make sure it isn't stolen.
The way I get around this is to carry a copy of my bill of sale for the firearm in my glovebox. Driver license, copy of insurance, registration, and bill of sale of the firearm I have in my possession. Overkill maybe, but might make a traffic stop go a little smoother.
 
The issue, since it came (if I read this correctly) from the police union, may be more relevant to what the union is doing for its membership than any problem with the public and permits. I think you just got caught in a political catch 22 and not a logistic problem.
 
Some of y'all are making far too much of this. In Texas, 'WAY before the CHL system was enacted, it was considered the polite and prudent thing to INFORM an LEO if one had a weapon inside the vehicle. LEOs informed fellow LEOs of their handguns, and everyone informed LEOs of concealed long guns, which were, and remain, legal inside vehicles, loaded or not. The "traveling" defense also existed from quote a 'way back when, and we informed then, too, as a matter of normal social discourse.

One more thing: Before the CHL system in Texas, lots of folks carried handguns in their vehicles when they were NOT really "traveling," but as it was the polite thing to do, and prudent from a safety standpoint, most such folks informed LEOs, anyway. The polite thing for an LEO to do in such cases was to overlook this illegal but socially acceptable practice, and let it go. Did it always work that way? No. Usually, it did .

Even many drunk drivers, booked for DWI, had their handguns checked into the property room, to be picked up later, after they had arranged bail.

Folks, Texas peace officers, as a whole, are not nearly as anti-gun as so many anti-LEO types make it out to be, or seem to WANT it to be.

I don't think that Officer Blankenship or Sgt. Calley are anti-gun, or anti-2nd Amendment. They just want armed folks to follow the normal, polite, prudent, Texan social convention of informing an LEO if legally armed.

BTW, don't expect the Houston news media, or any other news outlet, to print the whole truth, or the whole content of an interview. They print the bits they want to print, as it suits their desire to present their agenda, or sensationalize.

Oh, and before anyone injects race into this, I saw white officers giving black folks a pass on the handgun thing, and vice versa, in the pre-CHL days. Good folks are good folks, period.
 
This one is one of my most thing that I dont understand at ALL.

Without CHL - you dont need to inform LEO if you have firearm on you.

With CHL - you are required to inform LEO if you have firearm on you.

This tells me criminal have more freedom than law abiding. :aargh4:

Also whats the purpose for a CCWer to inform LEO if you have a firearm ? I'm pretty sure LEO already knew you have one before you inform LEO, why bother ?
 
This one is one of my most thing that I dont understand at ALL.

Without CHL - you dont need to inform LEO if you have firearm on you.

With CHL - you are required to inform LEO if you have firearm on you.

This tells me criminal have more freedom than law abiding. :aargh4:

Also whats the purpose for a CCWer to inform LEO if you have a firearm ? I'm pretty sure LEO already knew you have one before you inform LEO, why bother ?
Old news. As of September 01, 2009, CHL'ers no longer have to inform. The news story of two LEOs' reaction to that is what started this whole thread.
 
We're required to advise only if asked. There's been no issues that I know of with it at all.
 
Why would they think it will put officers in risk ? I dont see why ? We all are law abiding not criminal.

Also, since new law that dont requried to inform LEO - but it will still be on the system when LEO pull up driver license ?
 
I see it this way; the higher in rank you go in a leadership role, the more of a politician you have to become, and less "one of the people". It seems to work for both the military and police.
Don't forget the biggest offenders, those in government!
 
Why would they think it will put officers in risk ? I dont see why ? We all are law abiding not criminal.

Also, since new law that dont requried to inform LEO - but it will still be on the system when LEO pull up driver license ?
I'm thinking the thought process is that by not being informed, the LEO will be nervious, and might overact, fearing there is a gun.

That is my guess, I don't find it very valid.

Of all the firearm related issues, informing LEO you have a CC permit with firearm is not one I going to write Congress or join a rally on, regardless of the slippery slope arguments.

I may not like it, but for me, not a big issue, as long as LEO don't somehow use it to justify some other step, like the search of a car, or you waited to long to inform.
 
I see it this way; the higher in rank you go in a leadership role, the more of a politician you have to become, and less "one of the people". It seems to work for both the military and police.
I partly agree with this statement...

Not so. You just need to find those with backbone. Those who remember where they came from, and those who stand on basic principles. There's still a few of them out there.
This I agree with but, to get higher, even the ones who stood on principal needed to sell their souls to the politicians to get to the top so even if they aren't one, they are usually very beholden to the politicians.

It's a shame.
 
21 - 40 of 46 Posts