Is it true?

[Venus Pax]

Dad is over here helping me with the baby. He said that a law was passed and we are no longer required to show our CHL to an officer that pulls us over. Is this true?

He said that this was b/c officers in some areas have made it a blanket policy to disarm the CHLer. However, I always thought that one's CHL status popped up anyway when they ran your plates/license. If you hand it to them anyway out of courtesy, do you still have to surrender your firearm upon their request?

[DoubleActionCHL]

Not exactly. The requirement to display has not changed, but the penalty was repealed.

[srothstein]

And yes, they can still disarm a CHL if they have reason to do so. If I found one with a blanket policy, I think I would be tempted to fight them in court over it.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Venus Pax:

Others on the board have stated that a driver's license check will show your CHL,
but the license plate of your vehicle does not show your CHL.

SIA

[Venus Pax]

Venus Pax:

Others on the board have stated that a driver's license check will show your CHL,
but the license plate of your vehicle does not show your CHL.

SIA

I’m a little surprised at this. When dh got pulled over in Calhoun County just over a year ago, a dispatcher was giving the LEO all of our information over the radio. He told him dh’s name, city of residence, and CHL status before the LEO ever initially reached the window & got Mars’ DL & CHL.

[Beiruty]

No harm in telling the police officer that you have CHL and carrying or not. Even if you would be asked to disarm, that is still fine. It is the law!

You still have to hand over DL and CHL and your car insurance papers.

[Venus Pax]

Even if you would be asked to disarm, that is still fine. It is the law!
.

I understand that it's been the law, but it's a segment of the law that I would like to see changed. I think it puts the CHLer, particular female, in danger. I can see no good reason why a person with a proven track record should be required to forfeit a firearm when no crime (other than traffic violation) has been committed.

I don't mind showing my CHL. I do mind handing over my firearm.

[mr.72]

Even if you would be asked to disarm, that is still fine. It is the law!
.

I understand that it's been the law, but it's a segment of the law that I would like to see changed. I think it puts the CHLer, particular female, in danger. I can see no good reason why a person with a proven track record should be required to forfeit a firearm when no crime (other than traffic violation) has been committed.

I don't mind showing my CHL. I do mind handing over my firearm.

Actually, the law does not allow you to be arbitrarily disarmed, or disarmed for the sole reason that you happen to be armed. I am sure you know this. I have been eager to hear of any case where a CHL holder has challenged the police after being disarmed without reasonable necessity as required by the law.

to quote:

GC §411.207.

AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.

A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

Of course they will always say that for whatever reason you were disarmed, they "reasonably believe[d] it [was] necessary". There doesn't appear to be any standard as to what is reasonable. There also doesn't appear to be any penalty for violating this law (for the LEO), or any real recourse we have as CHL holders.

[android]

Not exactly. The requirement to display has not changed, but the penalty was repealed.

And that's the goofed up part. Laws go like this:

A person commits X when he/she does the following:

A) blah
B) blah
C) blah

except for
E) whatever

The penalty for X is ZZZ.

If there is no penalty, the law is useless.

[JJVP]

Even if you would be asked to disarm, that is still fine. It is the law!
.

I understand that it's been the law, but it's a segment of the law that I would like to see changed. I think it puts the CHLer, particular female, in danger. I can see no good reason why a person with a proven track record should be required to forfeit a firearm when no crime (other than traffic violation) has been committed.

I don't mind showing my CHL. I do mind handing over my firearm.

You don't forfeit the firearm. It is returned to you after the stop. The cop does not keep the gun, unless you are being arrested.

[Beiruty]

The mere fact, that we do carry is enough reason for the police officer to disarm a CHLer. We carry deadly force that can be deployed faster than a blink of any eye. Now CHLer are good guys, but the what ifs are a lot, CHLer with bad day, just lost his job, drunk, or had some booze, blah, blah. An average joe is not a saint even though he has a CHL.

If I was an LEO, I would expect no less than compliance and good experience at a traffic stop.

[ninemm]

And then there was the dyslexic LEO who thought he was a dog.

[mr.72]

The mere fact, that we do carry is enough reason for the police officer to disarm a CHLer.

This is precisely the mindset that we have to fight against.

Just having a gun, legally concealed and lawfully carried, is absolutely no threat to a police officer's safety.

This is the very definition of arbitrarily disarming you without cause. I can hardly think of any reason why an LEO would find it is reasonable to disarm a CHL holder to protect the officer's, the CHL holder's, or some other person's safety, at least not in such an event that the weapon would be returned to the CHL holder or the CHL holder is not arrested.

The mere presence of a police officer does not cause a CHL holder to be a threat. Period. There is no reasonable scenario whereby the police officer's presence is going to make the CHL holder a threat, unless the LEO is trying to affect a false arrest or commit some other crime wherein their safety would be at risk because the CHL holder would have to defend themselves from the police officer. I can stretch and think of very few scenarios where it could be reasonable, but they require some pretty ridiculous compounding of unlikely circumstances. Please, some LEO or ex-LEO on this forum, I would like to hear of remotely likely circumstances where someone reasonably would think that disarming a CHL holder who is not otherwise committing any crime is going to make anyone more safe.

It appears to me that the most likely reason that any LEO would want to disarm a CHL holder is because the LEO in question has an unreasonable fear of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and wants to maintain a monopoly of deadly force during the encounter. IMHO this really means that the LEO should be disarmed during the encounter because someone so driven by fear or ego is dangerous with a weapon.

[Rex B]

I have yet to be disarmed at a traffic stop, but I would have a real problem with it if it happened.

[snorri]

If there is no penalty, the law is useless.

You just described most of the laws that apply to government employees, saying they "shall" do something but imposing no penalty when they break the law. Turnabout is fair play.