Its Getting Better

[stash]

Read in the yesterdays Austin newspaper an article captioned "House backs looser gun rules" which indicated the House on Friday easily approved several measures that lighten restrictions on CHL holders. They are:

1. A CHL who carried a gun in a bar could not be prosecuted if the bar did not post a mandatory sign warning that bringing in a gun is a crime.

2. Allow a CHL to use an expired license if he or she had applied for a new one in time but had not received it yet.

3. Not have to show CHL to LEO when asked for ID. Also would prevent LEO from finding out whether someone has a CHL when they do a drivers license check.


The one that I did not see but read about last week was a CHL with no expiration date.

I know these are not the big ones for this session but at least they are thinking of us. Seems the TSRA is doing its usual good job along with a bunch of private citizens, i.e. Mr. Cotton and others.

[wheelgun1958]

Good!

The one that I'm a little iffy about is an LEO not being notified that a citizen has a CHL when they run a drivers license check. What is the reasoning behind that?

Privacy

[kd5zex]

IIRC, the bill only eliminates the requirement to display your plastic along with your DL during an ID request. If a LEO runs your DL they will still find out. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the double standard which was created by the Motorist Protection Act.

[TrueFlog]

Good!

The one that I'm a little iffy about is an LEO not being notified that a citizen has a CHL when they run a drivers license check. What is the reasoning behind that?

The better question is why should a LEO be notified in the first place? What is the reasoning behind that? The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why they need to know about my CHL, marital, religious, etc. status.

[jlangton]

IIRC, the bill only eliminates the requirement to display your plastic along with your DL during an ID request. If a LEO runs your DL they will still find out. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the double standard which was created by the Motorist Protection Act.

That's not how I'm reading the amendment.

Sec. 411.2055. LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF LICENSING
INFORMATION TO PEACE OFFICER. The department by rule shall
establish a procedure by which a peace officer who provides the
department with a person's driver's license number, personal
identification certificate number, or vehicle license plate number
as part of a motor vehicle stop or other law enforcement inquiry is
prohibited from receiving information from the department as to
whether the person is the holder of a license issued under this
subchapter unless the officer indicates that information is
necessary for proper law enforcement purposes related to the
person's possession or carrying of a handgun.

Sounds to me like they're removing the info from the officer's access unless they prove the need to know of license status,etc.
JL

[RiverRat]

If these bills pass, I guess my next question would be?..... Normally, one of the first questions from an LEO is whether you have any weapons?
What does this mean to that question? I won't lie to an LEO no matter how many lawyers give advice to the contrary.
You know the LEO is going to ask that question no matter what it says in a bill.

If I didn't have a CHL, what would the proper answer be based on the law making it legal to carry in 2007 in you private vehicle concealed?.....Do you ask the LEO if he has cause or a warrant? I'm sure discussing the legislation would go a long way toward a friendly stop. I can't imagine saying that it isn't any of their business and coming out of it happily. I like good outcomes and happy endings.

I don't see the LEO not asking if you have any weapons. As nervous as they are on TV, you'd be in jepardy if you are armed and don't tell them.

To go a little further, I haven't been stopped in 20 years, either. Growing up, grandfather was a Texas Ranger, one Uncle was an Austin PD capt., and another a DPS trooper. Their friends were often LEO, all normal, reasonable folks. Somehow, I don't think it's that way anymore. I'm not sure what I expect, particularly the young, green ones. If accurate, cop shows on TV don't make me look forward to any future meetings with the law. Maybe it's too much TV.

[kd5zex]

IIRC, the bill only eliminates the requirement to display your plastic along with your DL during an ID request. If a LEO runs your DL they will still find out. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate the double standard which was created by the Motorist Protection Act.

That's not how I'm reading the amendment.

Sec. 411.2055. LIMITATION ON PROVISION OF LICENSING
INFORMATION TO PEACE OFFICER. The department by rule shall
establish a procedure by which a peace officer who provides the
department with a person's driver's license number, personal
identification certificate number, or vehicle license plate number
as part of a motor vehicle stop or other law enforcement inquiry is
prohibited from receiving information from the department as to
whether the person is the holder of a license issued under this
subchapter unless the officer indicates that information is
necessary for proper law enforcement purposes related to the
person's possession or carrying of a handgun.

Sounds to me like they're removing the info from the officer's access unless they prove the need to know of license status,etc.
JL

You're right! But I put an "IIRC" disclaimer in my post so I am safe.

The bill was amended on 01MAY as can be seen here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB410.

IMO, this is not a bad thing and puts "us" on equal ground with persons carrying under the MPA.

[TrueFlog]

If these bills pass, I guess my next question would be?..... Normally, one of the first questions from an LEO is whether you have any weapons?
What does this mean to that question? I won't lie to an LEO no matter how many lawyers give advice to the contrary.
You know the LEO is going to ask that question no matter what it says in a bill.

Lying to a cop is almost always a very bad idea. If your lawyer tells you otherwise, you need a new lawyer. You have to remember that anytime you're dealing with the police, you should always use the magic words: "I do not wish to answer any questions at this time." And if necessary, "I do not consent to any search of my person or property."

Unless he has a warrant or probable cause, he has no right to question you about where you're going, whether you're armed, etc. I would rather have a ticked off cop write me a ticket that I deserve than to surrender my 4th Amendment rights in the hope that "playing nice" might get me off the hook. Truth be told, it could just as easily get me in more trouble as happened to the fellow in this thread: http://texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum ... 15&t=24456

[tfrazier]

For me, it all boils down to the question:
Why do I have to have a CHL to exercise my God given right to self defense?

Any legislation that leads to the ultimate goal of law abiding citizens being able to carry (concealed or open carry) without a permit from the government is good legislation. We may never get there, but any baby steps toward restoration of that liberty are good.

Cops don't need to know if a law abiding citizen is packing.

They need to know if a bad guy is packing, and a bad guy is going to lie to them about it.

There is no sense whatsoever in a requirement for a CHL holder to identify or admit that he/she has a handgun within reach.

I think the title of the thread is appropriate, it IS getting better, but we must never slack off, never tire, and never be distracted, or it will reverse itself in the blink of an eye.

[jlangton]

For me, it all boils down to the question:
Why do I have to have a CHL to exercise my God given right to self defense?

Any legislation that leads to the ultimate goal of law abiding citizens being able to carry (concealed or open carry) without a permit from the government is good legislation. We may never get there, but any baby steps toward restoration of that liberty are good.

Cops don't need to know if a law abiding citizen is packing.

They need to know if a bad guy is packing, and a bad guy is going to lie to them about it.

There is no sense whatsoever in a requirement for a CHL holder to identify or admit that he/she has a handgun within reach.

I think the title of the thread is appropriate, it IS getting better, but we must never slack off, never tire, and never be distracted, or it will reverse itself in the blink of an eye.

From some of your other posts,I assume you were at one point in the law-enforcement field. It's rare for me to see this view from someone that's been "behind the badge" at any time, and I absolutely agree with it. If I were to indeed have ill intentions toward an officer during a stop, the only time he'd know it would be when those ill intentions were carried out or attempted, so knowing I have a firearm on my person or in my vehicle is absolutely irrelevant to the officer's "protection" or "safety". IMO-it's all about being in control.
JL

[tfrazier]

Yes, I was a Texas LEO from 1987-1995. No CHL laws back then, but had there been, I would not have concerned myself with whether or not a CHL holder had a gun on their person or in their vehicle.

CHL holders have passed the necessary criminal background checks, and in general can be assumed to be in good mental health.

That doesn't mean that they couldn't inadvertently become mentally ill or go postal, but the likelihood is extremely slim. The same could happen to a cop.

Of course, most cops have gone through a few additional steps, like a psych exam, but all in all knowing the requirements for CHL holders would suffice for me not to concern myself that one was going to do something stupid with their gun. I treated every stop as if they had a gun within reach, anyway. They train you to do that...watch for signs, hands, eyes, nervous movements, etc. Because I didn't know they didn't until and unless I searched them.

Anyone who thinks that simply asking someone is a dependable method for determining whether or not they are armed is a fool.

There's no quantifiable reason to know whether or not a CHL holder is armed, just like there's no quantifiable reason to use felony stop procedures for every single traffic stop.

[jlangton]

Anyone who thinks that simply asking someone is a dependable method for determining whether or not they are armed is a fool.

There's no quantifiable reason to know whether or not a CHL holder is armed, just like there's no quantifiable reason to use felony stop procedures for every single traffic stop.

I really wish you could get that through the heads of all of the stubborn Officers out there. Life would be so much easier if that were the case,and they would find that they would get alot more respect from the CHL community in the process.
JL