No CHL and traffic stop while carrying in vehicle.

[srothstein]

Now, I have to admit that the the law about showing us your CHL does not specify just when under the authority of your CHL. If that is what you meant (and it was in that context), the law is explicit that it applies if you have a CHL and a pistol on or about your person. It says nothing about authority. If I have a peace officer's license and badge, and a CHL, I would still be bound to show the CHL, even as i tell them i am also a cop.

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?

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.

And if someone gives me a CHL, I am going to assume he has a weapon too. It just seems to make sense to me that he would carry if he can.

[Elvis]

Thanks Steve I thought that was the meaning of your post but as you can see others were trying to have it both ways...

[RLD]

I don't see what the big deal is...

[WildBill]

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?

[tarkus]

This is one of the reasons I probably won't renew my CHL. I can carry at home and at work and at the deer lease and when I'm driving without a CHL. I don't see any reason to jump through hoops and pay $70 so I can get hassled during a traffic stop.

[RLD]

This is one of the reasons I probably won't renew my CHL. I can carry at home and at work and at the deer lease and when I'm driving without a CHL. I don't see any reason to jump through hoops and pay $70 so I can get hassled during a traffic stop.

How many people are actually getting harrassed here? Do we have any statistics? Or just a few e-stories and isolated incidents?

[mr.72]

what do you mean? Every CHL holder is getting harassed, at least implicitly, because we are held to a higher standard than a citizen without a CHL.

I think the main point is that if anyone can carry in the car without a CHL, then CHL holders should not be required to present their CHL or disclose that they are carrying in any way at a traffic stop. Same rules for everybody.

[RLD]

what do you mean? Every CHL holder is getting harassed, at least implicitly, because we are held to a higher standard than a citizen without a CHL.

I think the main point is that if anyone can carry in the car without a CHL, then CHL holders should not be required to present their CHL or disclose that they are carrying in any way at a traffic stop. Same rules for everybody.

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. CHL holders are less likely to commit any sort of crime and whatnot, so why even make it an issue. I can understand that. But personally, if showing a cop a CHL makes them feel a little better, then I don't mind.

Someone saying "well I'm just not gonna get a CHL!" in response to some minute chance they'll actually get hasseled, to me at least, is just kind of humorous and even a little bit sad. Call your congressmen, start a petition, become politically active, but give up? That's sure not going to do anything.

[WildBill]

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.

[RLD]

I'm not a cop and I didn't write the legislation, but I'd imagine it's a matter of knowing up front, versus finding out half-way through. The logic is obvious. Find out now, find out later, they're going to find out. Why not tell them up front?

[lunchbox]

i dont see why they can find out we have a chl when they run our DL
seems to me thats personal info they should have no right to

[srothstein]

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?

That is an interesting question. I am going to guess that you would be breaking the law. Here is my reasoning:

1. The terms license and license holder are not truly defined in the government code.
2. The law says a license holder will show his license.
3. This is all in a chapter dealing with our licenses.
4. A Utah license is not the license as the term is generally referred to in the chapter (411).
5. Therefore, you are required to show your Texas CHL.

As an interesting side note, my read has a side benefit to your Utah CHL. If youa re a Texas resident and have a Utah CHL but not one from Texas, you are not a license holder under the terms of this section. You would not need to identify or notify the LEO.

But a lawyer might see it differently.

[Bashful]

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?

That is an interesting question. I am going to guess that you would be breaking the law. Here is my reasoning:

1. The terms license and license holder are not truly defined in the government code.
2. The law says a license holder will show his license.
3. This is all in a chapter dealing with our licenses.
4. A Utah license is not the license as the term is generally referred to in the chapter (411).
5. Therefore, you are required to show your Texas CHL.

As an interesting side note, my read has a side benefit to your Utah CHL. If youa re a Texas resident and have a Utah CHL but not one from Texas, you are not a license holder under the terms of this section. You would not need to identify or notify the LEO.

But a lawyer might see it differently.

If you look at the reciprocity agreements between Utah and Texas, there is a statement that "Persons carrying a concealed weapon in the reciprocal state shall comply with laws, rules and regulations governing the use and carrying of a concealed weapon in that reciprocal state."

I read that anyone who has an 'out of state' CHL must comply with Texas rules and regulations while in Texas.

[RLD]

i dont see why they can find out we have a chl when they run our DL
seems to me thats personal info they should have no right to

Seriously? You really think it's -personal- info? What makes a state issued license a personal issue?

And heaven knows how much you'd be hasseled if the cops didn't have access to find out if you have a CHL, if you ever happen to forget your wallet and they see your gun... At least you'd have a slim chance of gettin' a warning.

[KBCraig]

This is one of the reasons I probably won't renew my CHL. I can carry at home and at work and at the deer lease and when I'm driving without a CHL.

So, you never go anywhere except home, work, or your deer lease? Or can you conduct 100% of your errands while seated in your car?