TexasCHLforum.com

Suppose a person (who does NOT have a CHL) is driving from Houston to Louisiana and gets pulled over by the DPS. Do they have to tell the officer that they have a gun in the car?

Remember, the the law says that CHL holders are required to produce their license and tell they are armed. I don't think it says anything to my knowledge about everyone else.

Also remember this is within the law. This person is traveling in which case carrying a gun in the car is legal.

Is there a law that I am not aware of that says ANYONE is required to tell if they are armed?

My understanding is that you are under no legal obligation to inform the officer. I am, but then I carry under a different statute.

A non-CHL doesn't have to tell a LEO he/she is armed, but don't lie if asked. This is a minor point, but an armed CHL only has to show the CHL to a LEO, they don't also have to say they are armed.

Regards,
Chas.

Reminds me of a favoite line from LEO friend.

As he smiles real big and hands CHL back to driver. "I'll make you a deal sir. You don't pull yours and I won't pull mine."

Spoken while his strong-side hand is resting nonchalantly on the grip of a big ol' shiny Kimber.

You need to remember that Houston has sworn off these traveling laws and they WILL prosecute if you are found "travelling." How this would hold up in court...I don't know.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A non-CHL doesn't have to tell a LEO he/she is armed, but don't lie if asked. This is a minor point, but an armed CHL only has to show the CHL to a LEO, they don't also have to say they are armed.

Regards,
Chas.

If you show your CHL to a LEO, they assume you are armed. You are not *required* to show the CHL unless you're carrying so if you show it, they will assume you're carrying if you don't tell them otherwise.

Hickeroar wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A non-CHL doesn't have to tell a LEO he/she is armed, but don't lie if asked. This is a minor point, but an armed CHL only has to show the CHL to a LEO, they don't also have to say they are armed.

Regards,
Chas.

If you show your CHL to a LEO, they assume you are armed. You are not *required* to show the CHL unless you're carrying so if you show it, they will assume you're carrying if you don't tell them otherwise.

Well...

My well documented thoughts on this are...

You get pulled over...You are a CHL...Whether or not you are carrying at that time is a moot point...

I would rather (much to my personal belief in minding my own business and those of others) go ahead and err on the side of not giving them any surprises when they run the check...

Because at that point, if they do not know you're a CHL before they run it, they are sure as heck going to want to know why you did not identify yourself before hand, like I said regardless if you are carrying or not...

They will assume the worse case, and think that there is a "bad" reason why you did not hand them your license when you gave tham all the other stuff...

Even though there is legal "preponderance" (is that a legalese term Charles??? ) that is defensible, to not give them the CHL license if you are not carrying at that time...I would just rather not make the traffic stop something the officer or deputy is going to have a hard feeling about when he/she comes across another one of us...

And I'll bet if I call for it, a majority, if not all, the Law Enforcement folks who participate here will side up with me on this...And I'd much enjoy them being on my side, because they want to, and not because they have to...

So...I am ready for my flogging now...

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Hickeroar wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A non-CHL doesn't have to tell a LEO he/she is armed, but don't lie if asked. This is a minor point, but an armed CHL only has to show the CHL to a LEO, they don't also have to say they are armed.

Regards,
Chas.

If you show your CHL to a LEO, they assume you are armed. You are not *required* to show the CHL unless you're carrying so if you show it, they will assume you're carrying if you don't tell them otherwise.

Well...

My well documented thoughts on this are...

You get pulled over...You are a CHL...Whether or not you are carrying at that time is a moot point...

I would rather (much to my personal belief in minding my own business and those of others) go ahead and err on the side of not giving them any surprises when they run the check...

Because at that point, if they do not know you're a CHL before they run it, they are sure as heck going to want to know why you did not identify yourself before hand, like I said regardless if you are carrying or not...

They will assume the worse case, and think that there is a "bad" reason why you did not hand them your license when you gave tham all the other stuff...

Even though there is legal "preponderance" (is that a legalese term Charles??? ) that is defensible, to not give them the CHL license if you are not carrying at that time...I would just rather not make the traffic stop something the officer or deputy is going to have a hard feeling about when he/she comes across another one of us...

And I'll bet if I call for it, a majority, if not all, the Law Enforcement folks who participate here will side up with me on this...And I'd much enjoy them being on my side, because they want to, and not because they have to...

So...I am ready for my flogging now...

There is no "preponderance" regarding displaying your CHL. The law only requires a person display the CHL IF they are carring a handgun under authority of the CHL laws at the time. Period

If you are not carrying it does not matter.

txinvestigator wrote:There is no "preponderance" regarding displaying your CHL. The law only requires a person display the CHL IF they are carring a handgun under authority of the CHL laws at the time. Period

If you are not carrying it does not matter.

But couldn't everyone now be carrying under the "traveling" law and never have to display the CHL in a traffic stop situation? Doesn't apply to the other times when you might be asked though... And I am not advocating doing this - just trying to get clarification. I would still go with the open and honest policy.

Kalrog wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:There is no "preponderance" regarding displaying your CHL. The law only requires a person display the CHL IF they are carring a handgun under authority of the CHL laws at the time. Period

If you are not carrying it does not matter.

But couldn't everyone now be carrying under the "traveling" law and never have to display the CHL in a traffic stop situation? Doesn't apply to the other times when you might be asked though... And I am not advocating doing this - just trying to get clarification. I would still go with the open and honest policy.

Nope...Because if you got the CHL, you are required, when armed, to "notify"...

But I do agree with your open and honest policy, I don't like giving Law Enforcement surprises...

Those people who carry under this HB823 "Keel" law...Are doing so under that traveling clause that hasn't been updated or clarified in 150 some odd years...And that the major, high populated, counties in Texas District Attorneys like Chuck Rosenthal are ignoring the intent, and maintaining an agressive, let the court sort it out policy...

Granted, I don't think there are a lot of people out there doing this under HB823...And yes, I do agree that those folks who do are not going to inform an L.E.O. if they are pulled over for whatever reason...That was one of my sticking points last year when all this came out...What do you do???

But I knew even then that it didn't apply to me, or anyone else who is licensed to carry in Texas...

So the solution is two-fold...

#1 Elect DA's who are going to follow the intent of the law, and not ignore it...

#2 Get the legislature to define and further explain the intent of these laws to the enforcers...If it takes crayon to do it, then get on with it...

We need the law to be ammended once again to spell out exactly what the intent of the traveling stipulation is; then we need to take action to recall any district attorneys who fail to follow the clear intent of the law; anything else is a violation of the seperation of powers stated in the consitution.

Dave B. (climbing down from the soapbox )