TexasCHLforum.com

Budge wrote:Now for my question. Someone at the DPS told me that the officer or his department is required to mail me a copy of his complaint, since no ticket or other "accusation" is issued to me.

GC 411.187(b)
If a peace officer believes a reason listed in Subsection (a) to suspend a license exists, the officer shall prepare an affidavit on a form provided by the department stating the reason for the suspension of the license and giving the department all of the information available to the officer at the time of the preparation of the form. The officer shall attach the officer's reports relating to the license holder to the form and send the form and the attachments to the appropriate division of the department at its Austin headquarters not later than the fifth working day after the date the form is prepared. The officer shall send a copy of the form and the attachments to the license holder.

artx wrote:

boomerang wrote:That's why I called and faxed to show my support for HB 410. It was an early bill and there was plenty of time to pass it. If it doesn't pass I won't renew my CHL and I will do my best to encourage everyone I meet to get a Florida or Utah license instead of a Texas CHL. If they can't pass something as simple and logical as HB 410 then the state of Texas doesn't deserve our license fees.

IANAL but having an out of state CHL doesn't exempt you from the Texas laws

Like I said, If they can't pass something as simple and logical as HB 410 then the state of Texas doesn't deserve our license fees.

Plus there are the benefits of a significantly less costly initial license and renewal fee for Utah, and fewer bureacratic hoops (training, multiple affidavits, etc.) for both Florida and Utah.



Not having your CHL linked to your DL or vehicle registration: Priceless

Keith B wrote:

artx wrote:IANAL but having an out of state CHL doesn't exempt you from the Texas laws - you still must abide by them and show your CHL, regardless of state, to the officer since that is Texas state law. I wonder if you could still be charged with the class b for failure to provide license...

That is correct,and yes you can.

Correct in theory but a little more difficult in practice.

A person commits an offense if the person fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by Subsection (a) after previously having had the person's license suspended for a violation of that subsection. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

jlangton wrote:HB410 TOTALLY removes the requirement to notify and the penalties for not notifying, and the amendment by Guillen totally removes the officer's ability to freely get that info. They MUST have a valid reason to verify license status,and MUST have a need for that info in order to acquire it. At least that's how I read it.

There's no longer any rational reason (if there ever was any reason but FUD and bigotry) to require decent people to display a CHL during a traffic stop. Someone with a peace officer license doesn't have to display it. Someone with only a DL can carry in their car with no training, no background check, and no duty to inform the police there's a gun in the car. According to the courts, even a convicted felon has no requirement to inform the cops about guns carried illegally.

That's why I called and faxed to show my support for HB 410. It was an early bill and there was plenty of time to pass it. If it doesn't pass I won't renew my CHL and I will do my best to encourage everyone I meet to get a Florida or Utah license instead of a Texas CHL. If they can't pass something as simple and logical as HB 410 then the state of Texas doesn't deserve our license fees.

ScottDLS wrote:

boomerang wrote:

FlynJay wrote:

cbr600 wrote:Why can't DPS do the math and realize it's a bogus charge? They know better than anyone else when they mailed your license.

It is not DPS's call to make.

It's not? Then who makes the decision whether or not to suspend the license?

Well now... actually it's the Justice Court in the license holder's precinct of residence, as cited in an earlier post. Assuming he requests a hearing.

It looks like they review the suspension if he requests a hearing. However, for there to be a suspension to review, somebody had to make the decision to suspend the license. I think that's DPS but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

FlynJay wrote:

cbr600 wrote:Why can't DPS do the math and realize it's a bogus charge? They know better than anyone else when they mailed your license.

It is not DPS's call to make.

It's not? Then who makes the decision whether or not to suspend the license?