question on duty to inform

[greenbeer]

While checking the DPS site for my application status I wandered into the FAQs. I found a question asking about having your license on you when not carrying. The state's response was if your not carrying you don't have to have your license on your person. However as I understand it if asked for ID by an officer, say during a traffic stop I'm supposed to show them both of my licenses. If I'm not carrying at that time and don't have my license on me, would I be violating the law? Or would I just tell the officer I have a CHL I'm not carrying and don't have my license on me? I don't really plan to ever not have it on me as it will sit in my wallet behind my DL, but it just got me thinking.

[Jago668]

I was advised by my chl instructor, and a couple of officers to always inform. Their advice in a traffic stop was just to hand over both licenses. The two reasons given are as follows. First when they run your license it is going to pop up that you have a chl. So you will probably get asked why you didn't say anything. (I know you don't have to, but let's face it. It is probably going to happen that way.) Going along with this both officers said this information pops up in the same style of alert as a warrant or other bad information. So is going to give them a spike of adrenalin. The second reason given< this was by an officer over in Fort Worth, was that it is immediate proof that you aren't a bad guy.

I've been pulled over twice since I got my chl. Both times I was carrying. I handed over the chl and dl. Officers looked at both, handed back the chl and went back to their vehicles with the dl. Came back, signed the ticket, on my way. Nothing said about the chl at all. So personally I can't see how it would hurt you to hand it over even if not carrying. Hopefully some others have more experience with it.

[Pawpaw]

It's a good idea to always inform, but this is what the law actually says.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is
carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or
a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license
holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification
certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license.
---
Last amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (H.B. 2730), Sec. 12A.02, eff.
September 1, 2009.

[Abraham]

" So personally I can't see how it would hurt you to hand it over even if not carrying."

Of course, it wouldn't hurt a thing, but if you aren't carrying, you don't have to hand over your CHL nor are you hurting anything by NOT handing over your CHL.

If, by not carrying and not handing over your CHL, (because the law is on your side in this instance) the officer gets angry because you didn't produce your CHL, he/she is in the wrong.

This happened to my wife in a sort of backwards way: She was stopped by an officer for a traffic violation and when asked for I.D., she handed over both her CHL and DL, though my wife was not carrying at the time. She informed the officer she was not carrying.

The officer went on to tell my wife, it was a darn good thing she handed over both CHl and DL or she (my wife) would have been in "big trouble".

The officer was waaaaay off base and had there been any repercussions for my wife not handing over her CHL when she wasn't carrying, the one in "big trouble" would've been the officer.

So, after that offensive remark by the officer, I rather look at the idea of handing over my CHL when not carrying, as boot licking...all this is moot for me, as I always carry and thus will always produce both CHL and DL if requested for I.D. by an LEO, but in the off chance I'm not carrying, and I.D. requested, I will not produce my CHL as the law says it's not required.

If the I.D. requesting officer gets irate, it'll be very interesting to see how that turns out...

[Vol Texan]

While checking the DPS site for my application status I wandered into the FAQs. I found a question asking about having your license on you when not carrying. The state's response was if your not carrying you don't have to have your license on your person. However as I understand it if asked for ID by an officer, say during a traffic stop I'm supposed to show them both of my licenses. If I'm not carrying at that time and don't have my license on me, would I be violating the law? Or would I just tell the officer I have a CHL I'm not carrying and don't have my license on me? I don't really plan to ever not have it on me as it will sit in my wallet behind my DL, but it just got me thinking.

Both responses so far say what you should do...inform anyway, even if you're not carrying.

I agree - always inform is the best bet. I just hand the officer both licenses and don't say much more. Never has a question been asked as to whether I'm carrying or not.

But that's not what your question was. You're asking if you would be violating the law if asked for ID by officer and you don't have it with you and are not carrying. The answer is no - you are not violating. You are only required to present both licenses if you are carrying when the officer asks for your ID.

[LSUTiger]

" So personally I can't see how it would hurt you to hand it over even if not carrying."

Of course, it wouldn't hurt a thing, but if you aren't carrying, you don't have to hand over your CHL nor are you hurting anything by NOT handing over your CHL.

If, by not carrying and not handing over your CHL, (because the law is on your side in this instance) the officer gets angry because you didn't produce your CHL, he/she is in the wrong.

This happened to my wife in a sort of backwards way: She was stopped by an officer for a traffic violation and when asked for I.D., she handed over both her CHL and DL, though my wife was not carrying at the time. She informed the officer she was not carrying.

The officer went on to tell my wife, it was a darn good thing she handed over both CHl and DL or she (my wife) would have been in "big trouble".

The officer was waaaaay off base and had there been any repercussions for my wife not handing over her CHL when she wasn't carrying, the one in "big trouble" would've been the officer.

So, after that offensive remark by the officer, I rather look at the idea of handing over my CHL when not carrying, as boot licking...all this is moot for me, as I always carry and thus will always produce both CHL and DL if requested for I.D. by an LEO, but in the off chance I'm not carrying, and I.D. requested, I will not produce my CHL as the law says it's not required.

If the I.D. requesting officer gets irate, it'll be very interesting to see how that turns out...

Additionally, while technically against the law not to give CHL if carrying, there is no penalty for not doing so. So even if you should have or would have anyway out of courtesy (or hopes of ticket avoidance) and didn't then there's nothing they can do except grumble about it.

[C-dub]

I always have both my DL and CHL licenses with me when I'm away from the house. They are right next to each other in my wallet. Not so I can show an officer if I'm ever asked for ID, but so I don't forget the CHL. If I only carried the CHL license when I was carrying, you can bet that sooner or later I would forget to bring the license.

[The Annoyed Man]

...I rather look at the idea of handing over my CHL when not carrying, as boot licking...all this is moot for me, as I always carry and thus will always produce both CHL and DL if requested for I.D. by an LEO, but in the off chance I'm not carrying, and I.D. requested, I will not produce my CHL as the law says it's not required.

If the I.D. requesting officer gets irate, it'll be very interesting to see how that turns out...

Like you, I am rarely not carrying, so the odds of having to make the choice to show/not-show my CHL are slim. But I have a different take on it than you regarding "bootlicking". It's ONLY bootlicking to the person who considers it that for himself, because he shows the ID out of fear. There is a range of entirely reasonable reasons one might choose to show the CHL anyway even if not armed, ranging from "good-guy courtesty" to "this just doesn't matter enough to me to not show it". In neither of those two examples is anybody groveling, and that is essentially what boot-licking means: "groveling". Not every cop is either relaxed about the 2nd Amendment, or generally in favor of CHL, but in my experience since moving to Texas, most seem to be unconcerned about it. I understand that it doesn't matter from a legal perspective whether they favor it or not.....it's the law of the land in Texas, and they have to follow the law just like I do. But such encounters can either be pleasant or unpleasant, and the citizen is as responsible for how that social transaction proceeds as is the LEO on the other side of it. I choose the former (pleasant and friendly) and will avoid the latter (unpleasant and unfriendly) if it is possible to do so without compromising my health, safety, or legal status. It goes to one of those existental questions: "Is this the hill I'm willing to die on today?" For me, it isn't.

I also realize that one can refuse to show the ID and remain pleasant and friendly......in his own mind. But, if there is a 2nd person to the social transaction (a cop in this instance), that person may not interpret the refusal as pleasant and friendly. I completely realize that I am not in control of how the other person interprets my behavior, but if I choose behavior which makes a cop more comfortable around me, then I'm happy to do it.....for the simple reason that I generally want people to be comfortable around me. I'm a social creature. I enjoy good company, I want to be good company, and I don't discriminate based on what the person does for a living as long as it is legal......EVEN IF, at that moment in time, he/she is earning his/her living by writing me a traffic ticket. That's just the way I am hardwired.

I don't feel compelled to show the ID against my will, I want to do it. It's my choice to do it or not. On the day I don't want to do it, I won't do it. And that is a much different thing than "boot-licking". A boot-licker shows the ID out of fear of the cop, or out of the view that the cop is somehow better than himself just because he's a cop. That's not me.

[Taypo]

I always have both my DL and CHL licenses with me when I'm away from the house. They are right next to each other in my wallet. Not so I can show an officer if I'm ever asked for ID, but so I don't forget the CHL. If I only carried the CHL license when I was carrying, you can bet that sooner or later I would forget to bring the license.

Yep. ID slot in my wallet is big enough for both, its always with me regardless if I'm carrying.

As far as "bootlicking" goes, that may be a bit strong but I get the sentiment. It's just easier for me for give em both regardless, head off any arguments and go on with my day as quickly as possible.

[Abraham]

The unpleasant taste left in my mouth per either ignorance of the law on the part of the officer or the oblique effort at intimidation when she (my wife) was pointedly and aggressively warned that it was a good thing she'd shown both CHL and DL (when she wasn't carrying) or she'd of been in trouble, really rankled.

Now, I will certainly not become belligerent/bellicose with any LEO. I will remain pleasant/courteous, and will follow the requirements of the law, but I won't bend over backwards to please by producing more documents that the law requires, because hey, it makes the LEO feel special...I do consider that boot licking and if you don't think so, ok by me.

[greenbeer]

Thanks all. Even before the question was posed I was of the mindset to just have with me and show it if asked, just as a way to head off the questions later and possibly help the LEO relax (even just a bit). Abraham while I tend to disagree with your rationale for not showing a CHL, I do agree that the LEO in your wife's situation could have and should have reacted differently. One could just hope that sometime between then and now that officer has learned one way or another that he was in the wrong and someone else can avoid a situation like that.

[baldeagle]

The real question is why would you ever not be carrying? I made myself a promise when I applied for my chl. I will never, ever leave the house without being armed. I think I've done that once, when I was in a real hurry and not planning on exiting the vehicle. Someone on this forum has the signature, Carry 24/7 or guess right. I took that to heart, so I always carry. My wife is so used to it now she rarely ever asks me if I'm armed (usually when she's feeling uncomfortable about where we are going.)

[Taypo]

The real question is why would you ever not be carrying? I made myself a promise when I applied for my chl. I will never, ever leave the house without being armed. I think I've done that once, when I was in a real hurry and not planning on exiting the vehicle. Someone on this forum has the signature, Carry 24/7 or guess right. I took that to heart, so I always carry. My wife is so used to it now she rarely ever asks me if I'm armed (usually when she's feeling uncomfortable about where we are going.)

If I'm not carrying, there's alcohol or a Rangers game involved.

Or both :)

[greenbeer]

There are times when I won't carry like going to an event at my daughters elementary school or a Ranger game. My truck doesn't have a locking glove box or center console and I'm not comfortable with a lock box and cable around my seat frame. I'd rather leave it at home and know it's safer there than in my truck parked where I can't see it.

[E.Marquez]

The real question is why would you ever not be carrying?

I am pretty darn sure you know the answer to your own question.. but I'll play the game...... Because legally, there are instances where you can not carry... and like it or not, life goes on.
If I have to go to court for myself or another, Jury duty, ect, I can not carry.
If I have to go into the post office, I can not carry.
Back when I had kids in school, I could not carry when I needed to enter the building.

There are many other reasons where we have to make real life choices to not carry in order to both abide by the law, and carry out daily needs.

Some will now chime in... that they NEVER go unarmed, either choosing to ignore the law or somehow go through life without every needing to enter a restricted area. Good for them, that's not my reality.