So if I take your point and attempt to apply it to a hypothetical situation, I should be able to supply only a CHL to an officer trying to verify that I'm legally OC. Other than driving restrictions, expiration date and DL#, there is no information on the DL that is not also on the CHL. I had planned to put my CHL in a shirt pocket where it would be easy (and visible to reach with my weak side hand) if I do decide to OC. The risk is if I forget to put it back into my wallet after returning home. I would have my wallet and DL with me, too, but in a hip pocket.G.A. Heath wrote:Right2Carry: The issue with the DL/ID and CHL/LTC is actually the opposite of most people perception. Most people are thinking Law Enforcement can come up and demand to see the CHL/LTC and we have to show both the CHL/LTC and the DL/ID. LGC §411.205 actually goes the other way and requires you to present your CHL/LTC when an appropriate authority demands your DL/ID.
One of the chiefs of police in a local town here also held a town meeting that drew about 50 people. Based on the questions, I suspect the large majority of them were CHL holders. The presenting officer fielded the question about when they might ask for verification from someone OC after they are dispatched to the scene. He pretty much said it would depend on the demeanor of the individual that they contacted and that the dispatch itself would depend on how insistent the complainant was. They have trained their dispatchers to ask questions and to inform the callers that OC is legal in the case of MWAG calls. The chief and several of his officers said that they are in contact with CHLs nearly every day (they have a VERY aggressive traffic enforcement program) and have never had problems with them. They don't expect anything about that to change starting in January.