TexasCHLforum.com

jlangton wrote:IMO-there should be a set standard for disarming a CHL holder during a traffic stop,and it should be a written standard, not something left up to an officer's "discretion". JL

There is a set and written standard. It may be vague and you may not like it, but it is a written standard.
If you could change the law, how would you write it to make it less vague and arbitrary?

RLD wrote:I think that, when you get down to it, a CHL carry is vastly more likely to actually have a gun in the car than a non-CHL holder. If you don't show them the license, it still pops up on their computer screen in the car. Might as well be honest up front. It'd be an illusion to act like not showing them the license makes it any different. The cop WILL KNOW one way or another.

I don't understand your reasoning. If the CHL "pops ups on their computer screen" and they know you have a CHL why is it "not honest" or "an illusion" if you don't show them? They know it and you know it. If they know you have a CHL you are not being dishonest or trying to hide something. If they ask you something and you tell them, that it is being honest. If they already know something why should you have to tell them?

If you think it makes them "feel better" and you want to volunteer information that is your business. I feel better by just following the law. This whole thing about "volunteering" information is why we have the Miranda warning.

srothstein wrote:No, the law is clear that the authority to carry is irrelevant to the duty to show. No matter how you are carrying, if you have a CHL and a gun on or about your person, you must show the CHL and DL/ID when asked for ID by a peace officer. If a peace officer has a pistol and a CHL, he must show the CHL. If the person is in a car or in his house and has a gun on his person and is asked for ID, he must show the CHL.

What if you have your Texas CHL and your Utah CFP. If you are carrying [in Texas] and show only your Utah CFP are you breaking the law?

lunchbox wrote:im not old enough to have seen it im sure

It's not that good of a movie, but you can always rent the video.

lunchbox wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

I'll have to defer to the Legal Eagles on this one.

Legal Eagles?????
sounds like something Stephen Colbert would call himself

Actually, it's from an old Robert Redford movie.

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

Sorry, can't answer that one. I'll have to defer to the Legal Eagles on this.

Elvis wrote: Then are you saying there is no requirement for a CHL holder to notify the Officer if they are carrying in their vehicle because they now fall under the exception in 46.02?

That is what he is saying. I want to point out that, as I read the law, it says nothing about notifying the Officer you are carrying. The law only requires displaying the CHL license.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 wrote: § 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY.
(a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license
holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that
the license holder display identification, the license holder shall
display both the license holder's driver's license or
identification certificate issued by the department and the license
holder's handgun license.

Elvis wrote:The issue about whinning that because you have a CHL and are required to display your license and other citizens that do not have a CHL are not required to is really lost on me. How difficult is it to notify the Officer that you are carrying a handgun and why is this such a big deal for some.

I do not whine about complying with the law and the Officer should not whine when citizens comply with the law. I am not a mind reader so I do not know if you wish to be informed about a weapon or if you want me to be quiet so you can concentrate on your surroundings. If the Officer wants a certain behavior, they can ask. I am not arrogant in regards to the Officer's safety. My own personal safety is just as important to me as the Officer's safety is to him. Remember that a CHL holder is a lot more likely to tell you the truth about having a handgun in the car or on their person.

It is not difficult to notify the Officer that I am carrying a handgun, but whether or not it is difficult or "a big deal" is irrelevant. During an encounter with the Officer I am expected to obey the law, not to be familar with the departmental policies and training of the many law enforcement agencies or the personal preferences of the Officer. The Officer pulls over drivers every day. On the average, I will be stopped once every three years, so a normal traffic stop is an unusual and stressful situation for me. I have been trained to let the Officer control the situation and have him or her ask the questions or issue instructions on how to proceed during the traffic stop. If the Officer is so concerned about armed citizens they can be proactive and ask that question immediately.

If I am not armed, I see no reason to give the Officer my CHL. My CHL is not [unfortunately] a Get-Out-Of-Jail Free Card. To assume that it is, is presumptuous - the same as showing the game warden my CIA credentials.

carlson1 wrote:

srothstein wrote: An on a different note, I think we may have a difference of opinion on the law. You said in one post that a person with a CHL is always carrying underr the authority of the CHL when the pistol is on or about his person. This, IMHO, is clearly not the case if they are in a car, even if the gun is in a hip holster. As I understand it, a CHL only gives authority when the carrying would otherwise be illegal. Since the law was changed and it is no longer a violation of PC 46.02 to carry in a car, the CHL is not giving authority until they step out of the car. This may be a serious legal question if they are driving into a parking lot that is posted for 30.06. That law only applies when carrying under the authority of a CHL.

I would like to hear some more on this. Good stuff.

I agree with Steve on this point. If you followed the same logic to the extreme you couldn't open carry on your own property because you have a CHL.

lunchbox wrote:im just hoping i dont get pulled over in the first place i obey the traffic laws as best i can

I think most of us try to do that.

lunchbox wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Elvis wrote:WildBill, the Officer will find out you have a CHL anyway so why not tell him upfront and then tell him the status of your gun, or lack of gun?

I don't tell them until they ask. They never have.

im always armed so i dont have that option

Yes you do. You can give them your CHL and keep quite until they ask you something.

Elvis wrote:WildBill, the Officer will find out you have a CHL anyway so why not tell him upfront and then tell him the status of your gun, or lack of gun?

I don't tell them unless they ask. They never have.

What cracks me up about this whole thread is that many people in the forum think that it is best to show their CHL even when they are not carrying.