TexasCHLforum.com

We're all familiar with the requirement to have your CHL in your possession when carrying a concealed firearm and to show it to police. The law also requires people to have a drivers license in their possession while operating a motor vehicle and to display the license on the demand of a police officer. However, the penalties are very different. I think the laws should be standardized so the penalties are equivalent for not having either license with you. What do you think?

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE
SECTION 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY

TEXAS PENAL CODE
SECTION 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS

100% agree with me!

Since the LEO can find out when they run your stuff, car carry is legal, and you shouldn't need a second amendment permission card, the requirement to show and inform should go away.

ANygunanywhere

I also like the way a failure to display a DL ticket is dismissed if you do show the DL to the judge. Not displaying your CHL should also have the same option.

srothstein wrote:I also like the way a failure to display a DL ticket is dismissed if you do show the DL to the judge. Not displaying your CHL should also have the same option.

Isnt the way it is now kind of putting an additional burden on CHL holders? What I mean is, the info is already there for the officer. I think that it should go without saying that notifying the officer should always be done, but now that I have my plastic, if I were to loose my wallet, or forget it at home, and Im pulled over with a gun in the vehicle, am I now in violation of the law? Yet someone without a CHL doesnt even have to notify the officer. Doesnt make sense to increase the punishment for a CHL holder, when someone without a CHL isnt even breaking the law. Sounds crazy. Of course, this is only for traveling, and not doing a WallyWalk without plastic, which as I understand it, would be UCW.

asleepatthereel wrote:

srothstein wrote:I also like the way a failure to display a DL ticket is dismissed if you do show the DL to the judge. Not displaying your CHL should also have the same option.

Isnt the way it is now kind of putting an additional burden on CHL holders? What I mean is, the info is already there for the officer. I think that it should go without saying that notifying the officer should always be done, but now that I have my plastic, if I were to loose my wallet, or forget it at home, and Im pulled over with a gun in the vehicle, am I now in violation of the law? Yet someone without a CHL doesnt even have to notify the officer. Doesnt make sense to increase the punishment for a CHL holder, when someone without a CHL isnt even breaking the law. Sounds crazy. Of course, this is only for traveling, and not doing a WallyWalk without plastic, which as I understand it, would be UCW.

Yea thats how I feel. there is going to need to be some changes or amendments to the law to make things easier, not more complicated.

I agree with the above posts.

Car carry is legal with or without a license. Why is it more of an offense to not have your CHL than your DL? However, carrying on your person outside of your vehicle without a license is a different story.

thankGod wrote:I agree with the above posts.

Car carry is legal with or without a license. Why is it more of an offense to not have your CHL than your DL? However, carrying on your person outside of your vehicle without a license is a different story.

It shouldn't be a different story. It shouldn't matter outside your vehicle either.

ANygunanywhere

srothstein wrote:I also like the way a failure to display a DL ticket is dismissed if you do show the DL to the judge. Not displaying your CHL should also have the same option.

Yup.

To me, the whole thing is that the cop can see for himself that you have an active and valid CHL when he runs your DL. So why should there be a big deal over whether you have the plastic with you or not? As long as you have valid and solid ID, and you declare as required, and the cop can run you and verify that all is well, I see no problem with treating the fact of whether or not you have the plastic with you the same as whether you have your DL with you.

One possible reason for the CHL requirement. Persons with CHL's from other states are required to follow TX law in reference to concealed carry. Texas Law enforcement does not have direct access to out-of-state data bases. Having the law in there makes it a requirement for those from out-of-state to carry their gun ID.

I guess thaey could write the law that only out-of-state people need their ID's but that might make things confusing.

Penn wrote:One possible reason for the CHL requirement. Persons with CHL's from other states are required to follow TX law in reference to concealed carry. Texas Law enforcement does not have direct access to out-of-state data bases. Having the law in there makes it a requirement for those from out-of-state to carry their gun ID.

I guess thaey could write the law that only out-of-state people need their ID's but that might make things confusing.

I do not think that there are any states that license carry that do not stipulate you carry your license. I also do not know haw many rank it as a crime.

Texas can change the law without affecting those who pack here from out of state.

Anygun

anygunanywhere wrote:

Penn wrote:One possible reason for the CHL requirement. Persons with CHL's from other states are required to follow TX law in reference to concealed carry. Texas Law enforcement does not have direct access to out-of-state data bases. Having the law in there makes it a requirement for those from out-of-state to carry their gun ID.

I guess thaey could write the law that only out-of-state people need their ID's but that might make things confusing.

I do not think that there are any states that license carry that do not stipulate you carry your license. I also do not know haw many rank it as a crime.

Texas can change the law without affecting those who pack here from out of state.

Anygun

I understand that - but if TX were to get rid of the law requiring us to carry the license, an out of state CHL would not have to carry a license in Texas, regardless of what his states law is. This would be a problem as far as verifying the validity of the persons statement.

I've been thinking about not renewing my license because its really not necessary anymore. I think the unlicensed people are getting a better deal. My .02cents

kryten67 wrote:I've been thinking about not renewing my license because its really not necessary anymore. I think the unlicensed people are getting a better deal. My .02cents

I am not sure if you are kidding or not…I will assume you are not. I guess I would agree with you…if I was only worried about carrying at home or in my vehicle. But given the fact that I want to carry even when I am not in one of those two places…then I will stick with the CHL.

Don't forget - carry/self-defense is a right (even though it is currently a heavily-regulated right ). Driving a vehicle is a privilege.

There are places where one can carry a firearm, open or concealed, where no license is required, you are not required to inform LEO, and if you are visiting from out of state the same applies. They don't throw you in jail.

It is called not infringing.

Also, in those places, loud screams of "He has a gun!" are not heard, and there are no mainstream media reports of blood in the streets or BGs leaping on those who carry ripping their firearms from their holsters and initiating murder binges in malls. People wearing hawiian shirts and fanny packs are not indiscriminately shot down as they pump gas.

This is known as most people (note I did not say sheeple) really would not care.

Anygun dons his best flame retardant clothing waiting for flames.

Anygunanywhere