Declare or not declare that is the question.

[Big Ben]

It is my understanding of the law that a CHL holder is not required to declare that they have a chl or if they are armed to an officer if stopped.

I was talking to a DPS LEO that was working traffic control at one of my project and he said personally he thinks everyone should declare for 2 reasons.

1. He said that there are alot of smaller departments that might not be as current on the CHL statutes as they should be and might not know about the law change.
2. He would like to know just for his personal safety if there are ever any firearms in any vehicle he stops.

I am of the mindset even though I have no legal obligation to declare I might as well do it and save myself any possible headaches that might arise.

Does anyone have any other thoughts on this issue?

[G26ster]

You are still legally required to present your CHL along with your DL if stopped and asked for ID. Only the penalty for failure to do so was removed.

[USA1]

The above is correct.

Most here feel that showing your CHL is still the best idea regardless of the non-penalty.

[Big Ben]

You are still legally required to present your CHL along with your DL if stopped and asked for ID. Only the penalty for failure to do so was removed.

I see well thank you for the clarification.

[suthdj]

Don't ask, Don't tell.

[MadMonkey]

I still let them know right off the bat... makes their lives easier, which in turns makes mine easier

[rm9792]

2. He would like to know just for his personal safety if there are ever any firearms in any vehicle he stops.

?

This statement sounds dumber every time i hear and officer say it. How the heck can him knowing make him safer? The ones he doesnt know about are the ones gonna get him! If you tell him then you likely had no intentions of harm in the first place therefore his danger level is unchanged.

[NTexas_V-Star]

2. He would like to know just for his personal safety if there are ever any firearms in any vehicle he stops.

?

This statement sounds dumber every time i hear and officer say it. How the heck can him knowing make him safer? The ones he doesnt know about are the ones gonna get him! If you tell him then you likely had no intentions of harm in the first place therefore his danger level is unchanged.

But there's a lot to be said for peace of mind.

[Kythas]

2. He would like to know just for his personal safety if there are ever any firearms in any vehicle he stops.

?

This statement sounds dumber every time i hear and officer say it. How the heck can him knowing make him safer? The ones he doesnt know about are the ones gonna get him! If you tell him then you likely had no intentions of harm in the first place therefore his danger level is unchanged.

If you don't tell him there are any firearms in the vehicle, that firearm then enters the category of "ones he doesn't know about". And if the "ones he doesn't know about" are the ones that are going to get him, that makes things just a bit more dangerous, don't you think?

[Teamless]

I honestly do not see what the big deal is.
the law (even without penalty for not doing so) is that when you are asked for ID from a peace officer, that you present both DL and CHL.

I know many people who were pulled over, gave the officer their IDs and their CHL's (and I am sure their following the law and being straight up with the officers) and received just a simple "be safe and have a nice day" without so much as 1 minute of their time.

So at worse, no benefit other than doing what the law says, or benefit of getting out of a citation.

To me, the thread title is simple... 'Declare or not declare....".. I say "DECLARE"

[rm9792]

No because concealed is just that, concealed. A law abiding carrier is not a danger to him so his knowledge may make him "feel at ease" but in reality does nothing to further his safety. What I meant by "ones he doesnt know about" are the ones criminals are hiding which they will not declare and use on him, not my bug inthe console. Me telling him that my .45 is on my right hip does nothing but make him jumpy (possibly) and could get me shot for inadvertantly setting my hand down or something. I just dont see the point in chl declaring to an officer in a routine traffic stop. If he asks, if you have to get out, if you need to search your car for insurance, anything out of the ordinary then tell him as it may become unconcealed at that point. The MPA makes no requirement to declare so why are we different? If it is so valued safetywise then they should have to declare as well. My worst case story is a Pearland cop who stopped me and his partner felt the need to disarm me (the only one ever) and had his finger on the trigger while trying to unload a 1911. I was just waiting for the shot because he was obviously a revolver guy. There was no need to disarm me, no need to unload. Just for the record I do hand over my CHL, I do let him know where it is if asked. I am arguing the principle of the matter.

[Kevinf2349]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the new law but I thought that you were still required to produce your CHL if you were carrying?

I thought the only time you didn't have to produce it was when you weren't carrying. In any case what does not producing it buy you?

I just don't understand why you wouldn't show it, after all if they run your DL they will know anyway. I fully intend to show my CHL if I ever get stopped, why make trouble for yourself if you don't need to?

I guess it is a personal choice, and I choose to be as helpful to an LEO as I can be.

[WildBill]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the new law but I thought that you were still required to produce your CHL if you were carrying?

The requirement is still there, but the penalty for not producing it was removed.

[suthdj]

The law is still the same you need to show "when asked for id". Earlier this week I called the cops due to a threat made against my son, was talking with the LEO for 20 minutes and I never declared I was armed or a CHL holder, he never asked for ID only my name and birth day.

[cougartex]

I show both.