The ironic thing is that in the past, LEO's never knew whether a subject had a weapon during a traffic stop.seamusTX wrote:wo5m wrote: The CHL law is an anomaly. As I understand it, when the CHL law was being debated in the 1990s, some police officials were concerned about officers not knowing whether the driver had a weapon during a traffic stop. Therefore the legilature required CHL holders to identify themselves.
(Criminals, of course, rarely disclose this information.)
- Jim
So they pass a law saying that the people least likely to pose a threat to the LEO (i.e. CHL's) had to disclose their status.
Non-licensed "travellers" were not required to disclose their status.
And the only group that presented any significant danger to LEO's - criminals - were neither required nor could be expected to declare they were carrying a gun.
Since someone's CHL status comes up on the LEO's screen when they run a check, the only "logic" to this is if one starts with the premise that CHL's might get angry enough during a traffic stop that they would ambush a cop.
While this may have seemed plausible, or at least possible, at one time (prior to adopting shall issue CHL's), our current extensive experience with CHL's demonstrates that there is no need for the requirement today.
I have no problem with disclosing my status. I just felt like showing that there was no logical reason for it.