Question regarding the new law

RCP · Post by **RCP** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:07 am

Specifically the one which now allows anyone even without a CHL to carry in their vehicle. What I don't understand is that as a CHL holder we are required by law to present our CHL during a traffic stop when asked for indentification (I am assuming this is done in part to let the officer know we are armed). We can actually have our license taken away for failure to display. Is there any obligation by the non CHL holder to let an officer know they also have a gun in their car now? If so why not? Should they not also have the same obligation to let an officer know they armed the same as the person who went through the training and jumped through the hoops of obtaining a CHL has? Maybe I'm missing something so please forgive me for any ignorance it just doesn't make much sense to me.

Liberty · Post by **Liberty** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:20 am

This has been covered in depth, in a couple of threads, but I'll try to explain.
Yes you must present your CHL if asked for an ID by a LEO.

There is no such requirement for those carrying under the new Law.

As a CHL owner you are not allowed to decide that you are carrying under the authority of your CHL and not present it.

This actually makes some sense at least from a historic perspective.
Its probably not a good idea to say to an officer with out prompting "I have a gun!" presenting the CHL is a discrete means of broaching the subject. Especially if there are others around.

LEO's probably should be asking more frequently whether folks have any weapons on or about their person. The laws probably will get tweaked in 2009.
HTH

frankie_the_yankee · Post by **frankie_the_yankee** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:23 am

The new law does not require that the non-CHL citizen notify the LEO that they have a gun in the car during a traffic stop.

I agree that it does not make sense for CHL's to have to notify while non-CHL's do not. But that's the way they wrote it.

But don't be surprised if LEO begin to routinely ask people if they have a gun in the car. I expect that the training they will get to update them on the new laws will cover this.

When you really look at it, it doesn't make sense that CHL's, who have been fully checked out and are certified Good Guys, need to notify that they are carrying. But that was one of the compromises that was needed to get the CHL law passed in 1995. So it is kind of a relic of that era.

Subsequently, there has been no real desire on anyone's part to change or remove the requirement. So it remains in effect.

RCP · Post by **RCP** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:35 am

Thanks for the replies, I myself have no problem whatsoever displaying my CHL to a LEO whenever neccesary. Just didn't (and still don't) understand that now anyone can carry in their vehicle and if they don't have a CHL apparently don't have to say a word about it unless specifically asked.

Greybeard · Post by **Greybeard** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:41 am

Quote: "it just doesn't make much sense to me."

Some things will drive ya plumb nuts trying to get 'em to "make sense".

While others may come along and provide a better explanation, first, it should be recognized that it was a looooong, difficult road in getting the Texas CHL statue passed (Senate Bill 60) back in 1995. Some compromises had to be made. During the first couple of years of the program, officers were generally trained to ask at the outset of a traffic stop if the person had a CHL. Then, the requirement was changed so the officers did not have to ask, but that CHLers had to inform (only if carrying). Again, all of this was "in transition" with a new CHL program after about 120 years of generally "prohibited" carry of handguns in Texas.

"Tweaking" of the laws has been going on for the last 5 sessions of the legislature. Many view this most recent "Motorist Protection Act" as another step in "incrementalism", restoration of more people's right to self defense - without a lot of bureaucratic pufferies.

So, will CHL people put placed at a disadvantage by the "requirement to inform" ?. Not necessarily. To most "street cops", I think it will still promptly indicate to them that they are communicating with a "certified good guy" (or gal) - someone who has had the training and knows better than John Q. Public how to handle situations, whether it be routine traffic stops or deadly force encounters.

Wildscar · Post by **Wildscar** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:25 am

RCP wrote:don't have to say a word about it unless specifically asked.

I have a sneaky sensation that that question will become part of the standard traffic stop now.

Lucky45 · Post by **Lucky45** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:53 am

Just remember folks that the average citizen although they can have a weapon in their car, they CANNOT step of the car with it unless going into their home/business. So is there a benefit to having a CHL?

Does the average citizen have the training about criminal trespass, Unlawful carrying Weapon, and most of the "NO GUNS" (GHOSTBUSTER) signs applies to ALL of them and NOT CHLers.
So I wouldn't loose sleep about it, they will learn very quickly the benefits of a CHL.

InfoTechCHL2007 · Post by **InfoTechCHL2007** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:05 am

Lucky45 wrote:Just remember folks that the average citizen although they can have a weapon in their car, they CANNOT step of the car with it unless going into their home/business. So is there a benefit to having a CHL?

Does the average citizen have the training about criminal trespass, Unlawful carrying Weapon, and most of the "NO GUNS" (GHOSTBUSTER) signs applies to ALL of them and NOT CHLers.
So I wouldn't loose sleep about it, they will learn very quickly the benefits of a CHL.

Which is precisely why I personally chose to go ahead and obtain the CHL.
Good post.