TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I agree with the take what you get for now theory...

I can deal with nibbling away at it.
JL

Charles L. Cotton wrote:BTW, the floor amendment that prevented LEO's from being notified that a person had a CHL when they check their DL status doomed the bill. That was the primary justification for removing the duty to disclose a CHL. There was no reason to penalize a CHL if they forgot, or were nervous during a traffic stop, when the officer was going to be advised anyway. Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, HB410 was not going to pass with that provision. The Senate committee had already blasted the Senate companion bill and it didn't have the 410 floor amendment.

Chas.

It's sad the state senate surrendered to fearmongering. MPA doesn't show up on a DL check.

Time to ramp up my advocacy for Florida, Utah and other nonresident CHL. They aren't linked to the Texas DL so no pesky notification.

Unless people want those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act to have to notify LEO's as do CHLs, then I wouldn't keep mentioning the fact that they currently have no such duty. One of the Senator's on the committee mentioned that we need uniformity alright and that uniformity would come in the form of requiring anyone carrying a gun to tell a LEO.

Chas.

I don't understand the mentality of why the notification is necessary. OK, so the good guys will notify the officer and the bad guys won't, right? So what's the point?

-Cain

CainA wrote:I don't understand the mentality of why the notification is necessary. OK, so the good guys will notify the officer and the bad guys won't, right? So what's the point?

-Cain

The point is to infringe on the rights of the good guys while increasing the privileges of criminals and politicians. But I repeat myself.

The courts ruled that criminals carrying illegally, including violent convicts, don't have to tell cops they have a gun. It violates their right to require them to tell cops.

But it's OK to force someone who has a clean record, jumped through the training hoops, paid for a permission slip to carry, etc. to tell cops. Because we have less rights than convicted murderers and rapists.

Regarding carrying in a vehicle under CHL or MPA, I would guess that it is going to become more common for the first question out of a LEO's mouth at a traffic stop will be something like - you gotta gun in the vehicle? That would cover all bases unless the individual carrying under MPA lies to the officer.

The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.

boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.

Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.
JL

jlangton wrote:

boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police?

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.

Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.
JL

exactly, the criminals are going to be ones I worry about on a traffic stop

it makes no sense to me to have CHL holders have to inform LEO when asked for ID vs non-CHL holders not having too, it is completely illogical

Charles, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the "feel good" provisions added to get the CHL legislation passed in '95?

to me, if I get a return on someone indicating they have a CHL I'd be thinking: 'cool'; no problem; I wouldn't freak out and forcing a licensee to inform me does nothing for officer safety

dac1842 wrote:Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.

I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.

My concern is for the person who has had his CHL approved but has yet to receive his license.
I know one person who is trying to fight having his license suspended before he has even received it for failure to present it in a traffic stop, even tho he was carrying under MPA.

jlangton wrote:

stash wrote:I really for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone up there would be against this, especially with the MPA and all.

Elitist law-enforcement influence. In discussions with guys at work there is one ex-sheriff's deputy here, and he's absolutely against any law that eliminates the duty to inform. His opinion is that law-enforcement officers MUST know every time there is a firearm in any vehicle, any time that there is a stop-no matter what. His opinion is that the public isn't trustworthy, and that he's at risk no matter who it is-if there's a firearm anywhere in the vehicle. We definitely do not agree on this at all. He's also of the opinion that anybody that doesn't come out and announce that there is a firearm is trying to hide something. That's the influence that we're all fighting against in passage of bills like these, and the influence on lawmakers from the elitist law-enforcement types is HUGE.
JL

Well, my opinion has always been that trust is a two-way street...

With all due respect to those in law enforcement, and I have stated this for years many times...If the juvenile opinion that anyone who has a gun on their person, or in thier vehicle or home, and we (Joe Q. Public) by not informing law enforcement of those firearm(s) that the insinuation that that person is trying to hide something from them...Or at the least doing somethign wrong...

The attitude and misperception is in the worng place and on the wrong side...

WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM HERE...

Nor are we the solution...We are only doing what we should be doing in the moral right to keep and bear arms in the defense of ones self and others around us per the laws of the states we carry in...

Why is that always been a difficult concept of some law enforcement folks to accept???