My first contact (aka how I found out my CHL was approved)

[3dfxMM]

I thought so also, but in reading through the code I couldn't find anything that says you actually have to have it with you. The only reference I could find to a requirement to have it on you is the one for which they removed the penalty. Everything I could find just refers to the person being licensed, not the actual carrying of the license. Can someone point me to where it says you must carry it with you?

[Originalist]

The CHL return only comes through if you request a "Wanted Person" check (QW for those TCIC/NCIC folks) as a TCIC Hit. That check has to be run with name, date of birth as minimum search criteria.

There is no other way for that info to come back on a regular DL return/vehicle tag, etc..... One and only way!

As for not having your CHL in your possession, dont you have to have it on you to "carry under its authority" Doesn't MPA supercede the requirement for having a CHL in a vehicle?

The first offense (prior to the change in law) for failing to show your CHL when asked for ID was a suspension only and the 2nd was a B Misdemeanor which would = 5 yrs of no CHL...

[Fangs]

I know I've read that officers don't get your CHL info just from running your plates. How hard it would be to look up the name on the registration (and now insurance, since I believe they can check that) and then get the owner of the car's license info, then check for CHL?

That would certainly take some time (making it impractical for using it as a reason to stop someone), but it seems quite possible if you ask me. Then again, I'm not a LEO.

[gigag04]

I know I've read that officers don't get your CHL info just from running your plates. How hard it would be to look up the name on the registration (and now insurance, since I believe they can check that) and then get the owner of the car's license info, then check for CHL?

That would certainly take some time (making it impractical for using it as a reason to stop someone), but it seems quite possible if you ask me. Then again, I'm not a LEO.

While safely driving a patrol car, listening to both radios, looking for violations, or going to call? Impossible IMO. Plus...who cares if they are a CHL holder...that's not the crowd that LEOs are after. And you don't get DOB from QV (veh registration).

[Katygunnut]

I know I've read that officers don't get your CHL info just from running your plates. How hard it would be to look up the name on the registration (and now insurance, since I believe they can check that) and then get the owner of the car's license info, then check for CHL?

That would certainly take some time (making it impractical for using it as a reason to stop someone), but it seems quite possible if you ask me. Then again, I'm not a LEO.

While safely driving a patrol car, listening to both radios, looking for violations, or going to call? Impossible IMO. Plus...who cares if they are a CHL holder...that's not the crowd that LEOs are after. And you don't get DOB from QV (veh registration).

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I think I must have misunderstood my CHL instructor on this point.

[10Shooter]

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php is the way to go!!!

I have bought from them, very happy, great prices, fast shipping to your FFL!!

[WildBill]

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php is the way to go!!!

I have bought from them, very happy, great prices, fast shipping to your FFL!!

Nice to know, but???

[3dfxMM]

As for not having your CHL in your possession, dont you have to have it on you to "carry under its authority"

I thought so too, but I can't find a reference for that in the code. All I see is references such as a "a person who has had a license issued to them". No mention of actually requiring that the license be carried. Now, it may be difficult to prove to a LEO if they don't have access to the information via your license for some reason.

[cbr600]

deleted

[dicion]

As for not having your CHL in your possession, dont you have to have it on you to "carry under its authority"

I thought so too, but I can't find a reference for that in the code. All I see is references such as a "a person who has had a license issued to them". No mention of actually requiring that the license be carried. Now, it may be difficult to prove to a LEO if they don't have access to the information via your license for some reason.

Section 46.15 of the Texas Penal Code.

"Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who ... is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying"

we need to get the above modified to read:

"Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who ... is carrying a concealed handgun and is licensed by the state under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying"

Then we don't need to carry it anymore

[3dfxMM]

As for not having your CHL in your possession, dont you have to have it on you to "carry under its authority"

I thought so too, but I can't find a reference for that in the code. All I see is references such as a "a person who has had a license issued to them". No mention of actually requiring that the license be carried. Now, it may be difficult to prove to a LEO if they don't have access to the information via your license for some reason.

Section 46.15 of the Texas Penal Code.

"Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who ... is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying"

Finally! Thank you. I feel better now.