TexasCHLforum.com

jlangton wrote:

boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.

Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.
JL

exactly, the criminals are going to be ones I worry about on a traffic stop

it makes no sense to me to have CHL holders have to inform LEO when asked for ID vs non-CHL holders not having too, it is completely illogical

Charles, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the "feel good" provisions added to get the CHL legislation passed in '95?

to me, if I get a return on someone indicating they have a CHL I'd be thinking: 'cool'; no problem; I wouldn't freak out and forcing a licensee to inform me does nothing for officer safety

seamusTX wrote:It's a perpetual sore issue with police organizations such as CLEAT. They can't seem to let go of the notion that CHL holders are going to shoot them at traffic stops.

- Jim

actually CLEAT doesn't have a position on this

as for me and all the fellow officers I work with/talk to....they don't care about the requirement either, they're more concerned with the non-CHLs