Prior to Having License in Hand....

[jlangton]

I just spoke with one of Sen. Hinojosa's aides and sent a link to this post to him in reference to SB838 that removes this double standard of "duty to inform".
Hopefully it'll do some good to get this bill on it's way to the floor for voting.
JL

[Budge]

Just an update...I received my CHL in the mail today. It was postmarked on May 5th, the same day as my traffic stop and 4 days after I was approved by the DPS.

Also, the DPS emailed me a letter stating that I was approved on May 1st, and that they acknowledge that it takes 7 to 10 days for the license to be received.

I have called and left a message for the police officer who made the traffic stop. Hopefully, he has not submitted the paperwork yet to the DPS. If he has, or chooses not to dismiss the incident even after reviewing my evidence, should I try to contact his commanding officer? Perhaps he/she could intervene. This officer apparently polices my neighborhood, though, and I don't want an even bigger problem with him in the future.

[jlangton]

Just an update...I received my CHL in the mail today. It was postmarked on May 5th, the same day as my traffic stop and 4 days after I was approved by the DPS.

Also, the DPS emailed me a letter stating that I was approved on May 1st, and that they acknowledge that it takes 7 to 10 days for the license to be received.

I have called and left a message for the police officer who made the traffic stop. Hopefully, he has not submitted the paperwork yet to the DPS. If he has, or chooses not to dismiss the incident even after reviewing my evidence, should I try to contact his commanding officer? Perhaps he/she could intervene. This officer apparently polices my neighborhood, though, and I don't want an even bigger problem with him in the future.

Budge,please contact Senator Hinojosa's office to discuss this:
(512) 463-0120. Tell them that you have a possible license suspension upcoming related to this. I'm sure they would be glad to hear from you and might use this as a bit of fuel to fire up the other senate members and work on pushing SB838 through.
JL

[Budge]

Thank you. I just called and left my information with his assistant. I will fill him in just as soon as they call me back.

[FlynJay]

Just an update...I received my CHL in the mail today. It was postmarked on May 5th, the same day as my traffic stop and 4 days after I was approved by the DPS.

Also, the DPS emailed me a letter stating that I was approved on May 1st, and that they acknowledge that it takes 7 to 10 days for the license to be received.

I have called and left a message for the police officer who made the traffic stop. Hopefully, he has not submitted the paperwork yet to the DPS. If he has, or chooses not to dismiss the incident even after reviewing my evidence, should I try to contact his commanding officer? Perhaps he/she could intervene. This officer apparently polices my neighborhood, though, and I don't want an even bigger problem with him in the future.

I would, it will be better for everyone for this not to go any further, just wasted taxpayer funds.
I would just comment to the supervisor that you know the officer was doing his job and that you respect that, and calmly lay out the evidence that you have that you were in fact telling the truth. Be prepared to send photocopied copies of the postmarked envelope and DPS documents if necessary.

[Sangiovese]

I'm sure this is a no-brainer, but I know that I've overlooked some obvious things when I was stressed out.

Make sure you keep that envelope with the postmark on it. Since it was postmarked the same day that you "failed to notify" it is very clear evidence that you had not yet received your license and therefore had no duty to present it.

[suthdj]

I am a bit of a suspicious person but it is possible the LEO fully knows what he is doing and is doing it just to give a CHL holder a hard time, knowing the results if it goes to hearing. He has nothing to lose, but puts a black mark on the CHL holders record even if the CHL holder wins. On the brighter side the advice here sounds like the best options all things considered. Sorry for my pestamistic view on the situation but like I said I am a suspicious person.

[Budge]

I was on the phone last night with one of the Texas State House Representatives that sits on the Appropriations Committee for the DPS. She wasn't real happy about my situation, and has agreed to look into it. In the meantime, she's having me send all my information to her, so they can look at the proposed bills and see if they can keep this from happening to others. Apparently, HB410 has already passed in the House, and it's sister bill, SB838, is up for a vote in the Senate. These bills would get rid of the requirement for CHL holders to have to show their license during a traffic stop. We still need to notify the officer, but he can look up your CHL on his own. As they are written, these bills would not have helped me. I did not notify the officer, for obvious reasons. So I talked with the House Rep at length about possible solutions to the 7-10 day lapse in approval and receiving the license.

One option is to have the Issue Date included in the DPS computer system used by police officers. Then have the letter that you receive with your online PIN number include a notification about the 7-10 days. If you keep the letter in your vehicle while you wait to be approved, the officer could look up your approval date and see if you are within the 7-10 day period.

Another option would require that CHL holders call in to activate their licenses. But this would require more manpower, more money and a new system in place.

The legislators and the DPS are not interested in any bill that would remove a CHL holders responsibility to notify an officer, even though all non-CHL holders do not have to notify about concealed weapons in the car. The "logic" behind this seems to be that it's a courtesy to the LEO, and the DPS doesn't want officers to feel like their jobs are any more dangerous with us out there.

For the law enforcement officers who may be reading this post, I would like to make a comment. When a citizen makes the decision to get a CHL, we open ourselves up to higher scrutiny (fingerprints and background checks) and we take on a greater legal responsibility than non-CHL holders. Please remember that when you meet one of us. We're the good guys. We took the time and effort to follow the law because we are law-abiding by nature. I debated whether or not to get a CHL for a couple of years, simply because I didn't want to be labeled by law enforcement, or "registered" as a gun owner in your systems. But the simple fact is that YOU cannot be there to protect me at all times, and I've already had to defend my home and family once while waiting for YOU to arrive. So when we hand you our CHL, please remember who you're dealing with...A FRIEND.

[USA1]

im voting for you in the next election... and when you win, do something about illegal immigration.. please

[jlangton]

I was on the phone last night with one of the Texas State House Representatives that sits on the Appropriations Committee for the DPS. She wasn't real happy about my situation, and has agreed to look into it. In the meantime, she's having me send all my information to her, so they can look at the proposed bills and see if they can keep this from happening to others. Apparently, HB410 has already passed in the House, and it's sister bill, SB838, is up for a vote in the Senate. These bills would get rid of the requirement for CHL holders to have to show their license during a traffic stop. We still need to notify the officer, but he can look up your CHL on his own. As they are written, these bills would not have helped me. I did not notify the officer, for obvious reasons. So I talked with the House Rep at length about possible solutions to the 7-10 day lapse in approval and receiving the license.

One option is to have the Issue Date included in the DPS computer system used by police officers. Then have the letter that you receive with your online PIN number include a notification about the 7-10 days. If you keep the letter in your vehicle while you wait to be approved, the officer could look up your approval date and see if you are within the 7-10 day period.

Another option would require that CHL holders call in to activate their licenses. But this would require more manpower, more money and a new system in place.

The legislators and the DPS are not interested in any bill that would remove a CHL holders responsibility to notify an officer, even though all non-CHL holders do not have to notify about concealed weapons in the car. The "logic" behind this seems to be that it's a courtesy to the LEO, and the DPS doesn't want officers to feel like their jobs are any more dangerous with us out there.

For the law enforcement officers who may be reading this post, I would like to make a comment. When a citizen makes the decision to get a CHL, we open ourselves up to higher scrutiny (fingerprints and background checks) and we take on a greater legal responsibility than non-CHL holders. Please remember that when you meet one of us. We're the good guys. We took the time and effort to follow the law because we are law-abiding by nature. I debated whether or not to get a CHL for a couple of years, simply because I didn't want to be labeled by law enforcement, or "registered" as a gun owner in your systems. But the simple fact is that YOU cannot be there to protect me at all times, and I've already had to defend my home and family once while waiting for YOU to arrive. So when we hand you our CHL, please remember who you're dealing with...A FRIEND.

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.

Amended
Sec.411.2055.LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF LICENSING
INFORMATION TO PEACE OFFICER. The department by rule shall
establish a procedure by which a peace officer who provides the
department with a person’s driver’s license number, personal
identification certificate number, or vehicle license plate number
as part of a motor vehicle stop or other law enforcement inquiry is
prohibited from receiving information from the department as to
whether the person is the holder of a license issued under this
subchapter unless the officer indicates that information is
necessary for proper law enforcement purposes related to the
person’s possession or carrying of a handgun.

JL

[Budge]

im voting for you in the next election... and when you win, do something about illegal immigration.. please

[Budge]

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.

Maybe it's hung up in the Senate, and they were telling me the proposed changes. Or perhaps my Rep misunderstood the bills.

[boomerang]

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.

[artx]

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.

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...

[Keith B]

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.