Do we really need to notify anymore???

[Sangiovese]

I think that the require to display the ID now imposes a burden (and penalties for non compliance) on licensed CHLs that unlicensed people who are carrying under the "traveling" clause do not face.

Seems backwards for the certified good guys to have additional restrictions/requirements placed on them.

A simple fix would be to make it so that we only have to produce the license when carrying under the authority of our CHL and asked for ID.

That way, when carrying in our vehicle, or on our own property, we would not be required to produce our CHLs if asked for ID... but when when carrying in public, we would.

Seems like a very easy thing to add the words, "... when carrying a concealed firearm under the authority of xxxxx.xxx." to the end of the statement that currently requires us to notify.

Personally, I will always produce mine as a courtesy even if it were not required... but I think that it is backwards to have people who are licensed suffer from restrictions that unlicensed people do not have to deal with.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Flame me if you want, but I would go the other way. I have a lot of empathy and respect for people (LEO's) with the cajones to pull cars over in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, and who trust in their ability to deal with whatever situation develops from there. I know that if I were doing that, I would be scared to an extent that I cannot properly describe on this forum, but use your imagination.

The fact that CHL's have to notify, while travellers and people carrying under the new "car carry" law do not, is a quirk resulting from the fact that the legislature wrote all of these laws at different times and did not bother to coordinate them last year when they wrote some new law.

I would make it so that anyone who is packing has to notify an LEO when asked for ID, whether they have a CHL or not.

That way, if some dirtball fails to notify and is subsequently found to be packing (or to have a gun stashed in his car), we have an additional reason to toss his fanny in jail and keep it there longer.

[rm9792]

The fact that CHL's have to notify, while travellers and people carrying under the new "car carry" law do not, is a quirk resulting from the fact that the legislature wrote all of these laws at different times and did not bother to coordinate them last year when they wrote some new law.
I would make it so that anyone who is packing has to notify an LEO when asked for ID, whether they have a CHL or not.

That way, if some dirtball fails to notify and is subsequently found to be packing (or to have a gun stashed in his car), we have an additional reason to toss his fanny in jail and keep it there longer.

Not flaming ya Frankie, just curious. What purpose does it serve to notify the officer? What difference does it make whether he knows it is there or not? He should always assume the occupants are armed and act accordingly. Criminals wont notify and the officer cant tell one from the other so just because you havent informed him is no reason to let his guard down.

[Briankey]

I figure that since this License is issued by DPS, the State of Texas, it should be handed over along with your D.L. True, he's going to find out anyway when he runs your License, you know he's going to come back and Probably Question you why you didn't produce the License up front, so to eliminate that, I don't see what the problem is in just giving it up with the D.L.
Every situation during a traffic Stop is different, No LEO is the Same, Whether People decide to show the CHL or not is entirely up to them. I'm not gonna aggrivate the LEO, so since it is a License issued by the State, I'll Produce it.

Be Respectful if you respond to my post, as its only an Opinion.

[Mike1951]

What difference does it make whether he knows it is there or not? He should always assume the occupants are armed and act accordingly.

That'd work!! Every occupant of every car stopped for speeding pulled out and spread-eagled on the ground!

Yep! Great idea!

[Greybeard]

Quote: "What I'm getting at is that over the last 12-13 years our state has grown up a bit, and that some of these things in the law have become a bit outdated since the laws inception... "

Actually, at the inception of the CHL law (1995/1996), CHL folks were not required to notify. If anything, the "burden" was on LEO's to ask. The requirement to notify was added in 1997 (or maybe it was 1999?).

To me, a 90-day suspension is a pretty stiff - especially compared to no penalty whatsoever for those relying on the "car carry" law. But, as others have mentioned, it's generally not that big of deal in the vast majority of encounters with LEOs. I continue to suggest to students they show their CHL whether carrying or not, as to most LEOs, it's an indication of a "car carrying good guy/gal". (And yes, some LEOs are under the mistaken belief that "showing" is required in all cases, so it avoids that type of conflict too.)

If the law could be easily tweaked, great. If not, we certainly do have much bigger fish to fry in 2009.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The fact that CHL's have to notify, while travellers and people carrying under the new "car carry" law do not, is a quirk resulting from the fact that the legislature wrote all of these laws at different times and did not bother to coordinate them last year when they wrote some new law.
I would make it so that anyone who is packing has to notify an LEO when asked for ID, whether they have a CHL or not.

That way, if some dirtball fails to notify and is subsequently found to be packing (or to have a gun stashed in his car), we have an additional reason to toss his fanny in jail and keep it there longer.

Not flaming ya Frankie, just curious. What purpose does it serve to notify the officer? What difference does it make whether he knows it is there or not? He should always assume the occupants are armed and act accordingly. Criminals wont notify and the officer cant tell one from the other so just because you havent informed him is no reason to let his guard down.

It's kind of like when you show your CHL most cops interpret that as evidence that you are a Good Guy, because Bad Guys can't get CHL's.

Likewise, Bad Guys generally will not volunteer the fact that they are packing.

So if someone declares, it is an indicator that they are a Good Guy. And if they do not declare, it is evidence that either: 1) they are not packing (which will be pretty common of course), or 2) that they may have something to hide (i.e. they may be a Bad Guy).

If someone does not declare, the cop can go on to simply ask them, as many do, if they have any weapons, guns, etc. in the car, and observe their reaction. A Good Guy who is not carrying will be perfectly relaxed when he answers "No.", because he's telling the truth. A Bad Guy who is carrying may exhibit one or more "tells" that an experienced street cop can pick up on as he attempts to lie.

Like I said, I have a lot of empathy for the risks that street cops take on, especially considering the salary structure. There's no way I would take on those risks and deal with the kind of people they deal with for that kind of money. So I am grateful that they will.

If I can make things easier or less risky for them without insulting my constitutional rights, I am willing to do so.

It doesn't bother me a bit to tell a cop that I am packing. I don't think it should bother anyone.

Of course, I expect the cop to uphold his end of the bargain, and treat me with the respect I deserve when I declare. From some accounts I have read, some cops might require additional training in this area. (Especially back in the Northeast in one of the "may issue" states, where many cops freak out if you tell them you have a CHL and are packing.) That said, my own experience with TX cops (Austin PD, DPS) has been excellent so far.

[45 4 life]

With the car carry law changes I really do not believe it should be a requirment to show your CHL when asked for your DL. If the officer asked during the stop you should certainly provide the answer and CHL. With that being said, I would recommend giving the officer the information up front. I base this on a fairly recent incident that a LEO friend of mine had. During a stop shots were fired about 2 houses down the street while my friend was walking back to his car to run the DL. If that was to happen to me I would want the officer to know I am a good guy with a gun.

For those of you who take a strong stand on not informing the officer at all I will give you this to think about. One of the items that we were trained to do is observe the occupants of a vehicle while advancing forward. If I was looking at a driver or passenger wearing a light jacket on a 100 degree day in Texas, I would be a little concerned. Declaring up front would remove some guess work from the stop, and with some of the officers on the street that would be a good thing.

I have never nor will I ever be in favor of the officer wanting to take possession of my firearm during the stop. That, I believe should not be an option during a generic traffic stop.

[rm9792]

What difference does it make whether he knows it is there or not? He should always assume the occupants are armed and act accordingly.

That'd work!! Every occupant of every car stopped for speeding pulled out and spread-eagled on the ground!

Yep! Great idea!

Better idea is lets go to extremes! How about instead the officer remains alert and verifies all the occupants of the car and conitnues to remain alert? Again, since you are no danger, what difference does it make whether he knows or not? Criminals wont care or notify and he cant tell one from the other by looks.

[rm9792]

It's kind of like when you show your CHL most cops interpret that as evidence that you are a Good Guy, because Bad Guys can't get CHL's.

Likewise, Bad Guys generally will not volunteer the fact that they are packing.

So if someone declares, it is an indicator that they are a Good Guy. And if they do not declare, it is evidence that either: 1) they are not packing (which will be pretty common of course), or 2) that they may have something to hide (i.e. they may be a Bad Guy).

If someone does not declare, the cop can go on to simply ask them, as many do, if they have any weapons, guns, etc. in the car, and observe their reaction. A Good Guy who is not carrying will be perfectly relaxed when he answers "No.", because he's telling the truth. A Bad Guy who is carrying may exhibit one or more "tells" that an experienced street cop can pick up on as he attempts to lie.

Like I said, I have a lot of empathy for the risks that street cops take on, especially considering the salary structure. There's no way I would take on those risks and deal with the kind of people they deal with for that kind of money. So I am grateful that they will.

If I can make things easier or less risky for them without insulting my constitutional rights, I am willing to do so.

It doesn't bother me a bit to tell a cop that I am packing. I don't think it should bother anyone.

Of course, I expect the cop to uphold his end of the bargain, and treat me with the respect I deserve when I declare. From some accounts I have read, some cops might require additional training in this area. (Especially back in the Northeast in one of the "may issue" states, where many cops freak out if you tell them you have a CHL and are packing.) That said, my own experience with TX cops (Austin PD, DPS) has been excellent so far.

I have no argument with anything here at all Frankie. Good response. I have no problem volunteering up front, but do have issues with requiring it when others dont. I also have issue with them disarming me and emptying the gun. Unneccesary handling leads to ND's, especially when the officer is unfamiliar with the gun.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I have no problem volunteering up front, but do have issues with requiring it when others dont.

I would require it for everybody, CHL or not. Like I explained in my post, it gives the cop a chance to read any "tells" that might indicate that the subject might be lying.

I also have issue with them disarming me and emptying the gun. Unneccesary handling leads to ND's, especially when the officer is unfamiliar with the gun.

I fully agree. There is no reason for an LEO to disarm an LAC who declares, unless the LAC or other occupants of the vehicle are behaving in some way that arouses reasonable suspicion or apprehension on the part of the LEO. And please note that I believe that this is far-fetched, and that I would expect such a thing to be very rare, but I just mention it because it is not impossible that in some situations the cop might feel it is necessary.

[rm9792]

All or nothing is agreeable.

[tboesche]

Matthew 22 verse 21 says, "Give unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar...."

As long as the state requires us to carry a "permission slip", then they also have the power to mandate that we display it anytime an LEO ask's for ID. We all knew this when we sent in our applications and accepted the card. Goes with the territory so to speak. I choose to carry the "permission slip" and subsequently the gun. Therefore, I have no problem showing the CHL if stopped.

That being said I think a better battle would be to do away with the requirement to have the CHL. As has been said, a law abiding citizen will notify an LEO when asked, or when it may become evident. What effect does having a CHL really have? It really only restrict us good guys. The Bad guys are gonna carry anyway, the law matters not to them. As is usually the case, the good guys pay the price to be legal.

Dump the requirement for the CHL, fight to remove restrictions on where we can carry, fight for HARSHER, MANDATORY penalties for repeat offenders.

[mondo2000]

What happens if I am carrying in my car but don't have my Concealed Handgun license with me? Will I be arrested for not notifying and carrying without my license, or will nothing happened since I am carrying as allowed by law?

Do you only have to show your CHL if you are legally detained by a police officer? My instructor said to show them your CHL when they asked for your drivers license, but what if you are not driving?

[frankie_the_yankee]

What happens if I am carrying in my car but don't have my Concealed Handgun license with me? Will I be arrested for not notifying and carrying without my license, or will nothing happened since I am carrying as allowed by law?

Do you only have to show your CHL if you are legally detained by a police officer? My instructor said to show them your CHL when they asked for your drivers license, but what if you are not driving?

I think that if you have a CHL, you have to have it with you under current law if you are carrying. And you have to declare.

If you don't have a CHL, you don't have to declare. (Yes, it's a quirk in the law.)

My understanding is that you need to declare and show your CHL whenever a cop asks you for ID, whether you are driving or not. I wouldn't get hung up on whatever the definition of "detained" might be. If a cop asks me for ID and I am packing, I am going to declare and show him my DL and CHL.

IANAL.