New traffic, criminal effective Sept. 1

[boomerang]

So with no harm of not displaying a CHL to officer on demand. So, how an officer can check if one who is carrying concealed with no CHL at all and did not show any ID whatsoever?

Does the guy get arrested, or let go with his firearm regardless of a CHL or not?

As if anyone carry concealed with impunity.

I'm not sure what you're asking. MPA passed two years ago and confirmed it's legal for people who aren't criminals to carry in their car and no ID is needed to be a pasenger in your own car.

[The Annoyed Man]

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s
failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and
suspensions for the failure to display.

I just want to make sure I read this right... I am I correct in assuming that this means that as of 09/01/09, there is no more penalty for failure to disclose your CHL to an officer if ID is asked for while you are carrying? Am I also correct in assuming that this also means that — since there is no more penalty — there is effectively no more requirement to disclose CHL status?

I'm not sure I know what I think about that if it is true. I'll just have to process it and see what my little brain comes up with.

[dicion]

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s
failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and
suspensions for the failure to display.

I just want to make sure I read this right... I am I correct in assuming that this means that as of 09/01/09, there is no more penalty for failure to disclose your CHL to an officer if ID is asked for while you are carrying? Am I also correct in assuming that this also means that — since there is no more penalty — there is effectively no more requirement to disclose CHL status?

I'm not sure I know what I think about that if it is true. I'll just have to process it and see what my little brain comes up with.

That is correct. Technically, there is still a requirement, but no penalty, so effectively, yes.

Don't expect the officers to know that though, and do expect them to go ballistic when they run your DL and find you have a CHL that you didn't show them.

[joe817]

Doesn't the statutes state that that is a "defense to the prosecution"....meaning they can still arrest you, for failing to show the CHL, but that when/if you go before a judge(meaning after, you've posted bail, hired an attorney, and gone before the judge), the case will be dismissed? If not arrest you, issue you a citation.

I find the law so complicated to interpret. Phew.

[dicion]

Doesn't the statutes state that that is a "defense to the prosecution"....meaning they can still arrest you, for failing to show the CHL, but that when/if you go before a judge(meaning after, you've posted bail, hired an attorney, and gone before the judge), the case will be dismissed? If not arrest you, issue you a citation.

I find the law so complicated to interpret. Phew.

This is correct, they Can arrest you.

Hopefully the DA will actually know the law and choose not to prosecute the case, in which case, you'll just spend a bit in jail.
If they decide to prosecute, then you would have to go to trial and the burden would be on you to prove that the signs were not posted properly, but if you could prove that, then you'd be let off.

[The Annoyed Man]

That is correct. Technically, there is still a requirement, but no penalty, so effectively, yes.

Don't expect the officers to know that though, and do expect them to go ballistic when they run your DL and find you have a CHL that you didn't show them.

Oh, I would most likely disclose the information and show the CHL to the officer anyway, as a matter of courtesy. I just wanted to know if I understood correctly that the requirement to do so is, for all practical purposes, no longer an issue.

[C-dub]

Failure to show CHL:
Isn't it also still true that we do have to have it with us? I mean that if we initially forget to show it, but the officer finds it when the DL is run and asks us for it we must still have it with us or be in trouble? If the officer begins to give us a citation for not initially I suppose we could plead our case and ask that the duty seargent be called to try and verify that there is no longer a penalty for this.

Motorcycles:
This is probably only for new MC licenses. There are more and more people getting MC licenses because of gas prices. Many of these are kids that are used to video game bikes and totally unprepared for the power of today's sportbikes. Even the small ones. Most kids go through safety courses because it gives a discount on insurance. There are also many adults getting MC licenses for the first time and aren't as used to looking around as much as needed on a bike compared to a cage. As intrusive as this sounds, driving is a privelege, not a right. I'm in favor of this.

[boomerang]

This is correct, they Can arrest you.

I suppose they can. In the same way they can arrest you for driving on Sunday.

[boomerang]

Failure to show CHL:
Isn't it also still true that we do have to have it with us? I mean that if we initially forget to show it, but the officer finds it when the DL is run and asks us for it we must still have it with us or be in trouble?

That depends. Where are you in the scenario? Standing on your front lawn? In your car? In your local grocery store? In your local elementary school? In your local courthouse?

The first two require no license. The last two are prohibited even with a CHL. It's only in the third case that having a CHL will make a difference soon.

[C-dub]

True, but I thought if we are in our car we must still have it specifically because we have a CHL. Obviously, if we didn't have a CHL we wouldn't and couldn't show it. But because we do have a CHL we are requird to have it with us whenever we are carrying and I that even the MPA did not apply to us. Of course, I could be wrong on this and wouldn't ahve a problem admitting to it if I actually am.

[Dexdahex]

So with no harm of not displaying a CHL to officer on demand. So, how an officer can check if one who is carrying concealed with no CHL at all and did not show any ID whatsoever?

Does the guy get arrested, or let go with his firearm regardless of a CHL or not?

As if anyone carry concealed with impunity.

I figure that really doesn't apply to me, because I will show my CHL regardless if I'm carrying or not.....100% of the time.

What if we are in the school zone at that time? Do you still show your CHL?????? ( Even though they know you have one)

[Purplehood]

Failure to show CHL:
Isn't it also still true that we do have to have it with us? I mean that if we initially forget to show it, but the officer finds it when the DL is run and asks us for it we must still have it with us or be in trouble? If the officer begins to give us a citation for not initially I suppose we could plead our case and ask that the duty seargent be called to try and verify that there is no longer a penalty for this.

Another question is, do you have a weapon on you? If you don't than I don't believe there is any requirement to have the CHL on your person.

[joe817]

So with no harm of not displaying a CHL to officer on demand. So, how an officer can check if one who is carrying concealed with no CHL at all and did not show any ID whatsoever?

Does the guy get arrested, or let go with his firearm regardless of a CHL or not?

As if anyone carry concealed with impunity.

I figure that really doesn't apply to me, because I will show my CHL regardless if I'm carrying or not.....100% of the time.

What if we are in the school zone at that time? Do you still show your CHL?????? ( Even though they know you have one)

The answer is yes. Why would you not show it??

[thankGod]

a lot of the transportation/traffic/licensing stuff stinks.

On the one hand, we get a little more freedom regarding guns (presenting CHL to a peace officer, improperly-posted 51% establishments, buying guns from non-contiguous states). On the other hand we lose freedoms regarding driving (MC license requires training course, talking on a cell phone in a school zone, etc.). Tradeoffs I suppose.

I assume that the change in the motorcycle requirement will "Grandfather" in those that have a current MC license?
I've had my MC license for 43 years. Now days, I think you just fill out some paper work, maybe a rules of the
road test, and bingo....you get a license. To get my original operators license, a DPS trooper rode in the car with me, and
to get the MC license a DPS trooper rode in a car behind me and honked once for turn left, and twice for turn right.
You roll through a stop, fail to signal etc etc etc and you fail your driving portion of the test....no license that day!

I only had my MC license for about 35 years, but you were required to take an actual driving test to get your license. I was a little shocked the other day to find out that driving wasn't a requirement for a driving license. No wonder people can't stay in their lane, or handle their vehicle.

[Dexdahex]

So with no harm of not displaying a CHL to officer on demand. So, how an officer can check if one who is carrying concealed with no CHL at all and did not show any ID whatsoever?

Does the guy get arrested, or let go with his firearm regardless of a CHL or not?

As if anyone carry concealed with impunity.

I figure that really doesn't apply to me, because I will show my CHL regardless if I'm carrying or not.....100% of the time.

What if we are in the school zone at that time? Do you still show your CHL?????? ( Even though they know you have one)

The answer is yes. Why would you not show it??

I would show it...what I was saying is that what if a LEO stop me because he thinks I using the phone (new law no cellphone use in school zone) then he pulls me over in the parking lot...now I would be in violation for carrying on school property CHL or not if I'm correct...as I would give him my id and CHL...then of course he will ask if carrying....