TexasCHLforum.com

FlynJay wrote:As a CHL, having been through the 10-15 hour training class, you should have a fairly good idea of what the law says.

A CHL is something I have, not something I am. That's true, we should have a good understanding of the law, and we have an obligation to follow it. However, individuals still find themselves in violation of the law. We have no obligation to answer questions that may reveal we've violated the law.

mr.72 wrote:Actually, I think the OP was under the impression that they didn't have to show their CHL if they were legally carrying in a place that did not require a CHL to carry (their car).

That's a good point. Like I said many people don't understand what the law says, nor do they understand how it will be interpreted by the police, DAs, and the courts. It's complicated and easy to draw the wrong conclusion. Many people are uncertain what exactly the law says on this issue. There was a thread in this forum on this just recently.

HGWC wrote: A CHL is something I have, not something I am. That's true, we should have a good understanding of the law, and we have an obligation to follow it. However, individuals still find themselves in violation of the law. We have no obligation to answer questions that may reveal we've violated the law.

I have a question.

When may a CHL holder NOT claim to be carrying under the authority of the CHL law?

It seems to me that once one holds a CHL, one is always a CHL holder; unless revoked, suspended or one allows it to expire. Even then, the fact that one was at one time a CHL holder comes back on the DL check.

Charles,
May one "lay down" the CHL for a time and carry under any other authority, without being a LEO?

Kw5kw,

A person can carry under lots of authorities other than his CHL. First, if he is in his car, and of course meets the other restrictions, he is not carrying under the authority of his CHL since his CHL is not applicable until the carrying is otherwise illegal. Second, as you pointed out (or recognized and mentioned), if the CHL is also an LEO, he can be carrying under the authority of either his peace officer status OR his CHL in some circumstances. And, if an LEO can choose which authority he is carrying under, a CHL with a second authority also can choose.

So, the real question is how to determine which authority you are carrying under. I have a simple rule that I always use, even though it has a slight risk to it. Whenever I get to interpret the law, I always interpret it in my favor if I can.

So, for one example, if I am riding my horse across the country, I have a CHL and I am traveling. Which exception should I claim to be using? I would first claim I was exempt because I was a traveler, then mention the CHL only as a fallback. The logic of this is that a traveler has a generally broader exception to the law and 30.06 does not apply to him. The fallback makes the CHL even more of an insurance policy than it is normally.

The real trick is to remember what the good and bad parts of each position are and choose the right one. The second trick is to remember what the duties of a CHL are at all times. For example, 30.06 only applies when you are using your CHL authority, but giving the CHL with the Dl to a cop is required anytime you are armed, no matter what the authority for the being armed is. Even an LEO who is a CHL must show both to a cop that stops him for a traffic violation.

You guys rock! I'm starting to see legal issues I haven't even thought of before! And I thought I was fairly informed about penal codes, at least the California version.

WOW! GREAT JOB!

--John

srothstein wrote: The real trick is to remember what the good and bad parts of each position are and choose the right one. The second trick is to remember what the duties of a CHL are at all times. For example, 30.06 only applies when you are using your CHL authority, but giving the CHL with the Dl to a cop is required anytime you are armed, no matter what the authority for the being armed is. Even an LEO who is a CHL must show both to a cop that stops him for a traffic violation.

Another trick is to remember that you don't have to answer questions about the firearm. If there's no gun, there's no potential violation of either the CHL or firearm possession laws. He can't search your person or your surroundings unless there's some suspicion that a crime has been or was about to be committed.

Where are you going? Where have you been? Do you know how fast you were going? Do you know what the speed limit is here? Do you have any guns or drugs? Do you have any dead bodies in the trunk? You just don't have to answer, and it's better not to. How to minimize the hassle with an LEO that doesn't know the law or doesn't care what the law says is another matter. You have to decide which is worse, hassle with the LEO if you don't cooperate fully, or hassle with the LEO and the courts if you do cooperate and answer his questions. I know most people are more than willing, almost proud, to show him the gun, but I'm more inclined to keep the gun out of the conversation. It's just a traffic stop. If I have the dome light on with my hands on the wheel, and I don't go jumping for the glove box, there shouldn't be any problem. They don't question drivers about guns on a typical traffic stop even though they know every driver can legally possess one. They sure shouldn't question CHL holders after all the crap we had to go through to get it in the first place.

HGWC wrote:

srothstein wrote: The real trick is to remember what the good and bad parts of each position are and choose the right one. The second trick is to remember what the duties of a CHL are at all times. For example, 30.06 only applies when you are using your CHL authority, but giving the CHL with the Dl to a cop is required anytime you are armed, no matter what the authority for the being armed is. Even an LEO who is a CHL must show both to a cop that stops him for a traffic violation.

Another trick is to remember that you don't have to answer questions about the firearm. If there's no gun, there's no potential violation of either the CHL or firearm possession laws. He can't search your person or your surroundings unless there's some suspicion that a crime has been or was about to be committed.

Where are you going? Where have you been? Do you know how fast you were going? Do you know what the speed limit is here? Do you have any guns or drugs? Do you have any dead bodies in the trunk? You just don't have to answer, and it's better not to. How to minimize the hassle with an LEO that doesn't know the law or doesn't care what the law says is another matter. You have to decide which is worse, hassle with the LEO if you don't cooperate fully, or hassle with the LEO and the courts if you do cooperate and answer his questions. I know most people are more than willing, almost proud, to show him the gun, but I'm more inclined to keep the gun out of the conversation. It's just a traffic stop. If I have the dome light on with my hands on the wheel, and I don't go jumping for the glove box, there shouldn't be any problem. They don't question drivers about guns on a typical traffic stop even though they know every driver can legally possess one. They sure shouldn't question CHL holders after all the crap we had to go through to get it in the first place.

I think people try to co-operate with an LEO on a traffic stop in the hope that he will go lenient on the traffic tickets. Its never worked for me.

Liberty wrote: I think people try to co-operate with an LEO on a traffic stop in the hope that he will go lenient on the traffic tickets. Its never worked for me.

That plus the fact that he has a gun. I've had people assure me that if I didn't answer the question on the gun that I'll end up face down on the ground with a gun to my head. That, while they assure me that most cops are good cops! Seems to me that I should be able to politely keep the gun out of the conversation, steer the conversation back to the traffic stop, and still hopefully walk away with a warning and have a nice day. He is mostly likely a good cop, and it is just a minor traffic stop right?

srothstein wrote:<snip>

So, the real question is how to determine which authority you are carrying under. I have a simple rule that I always use, even though it has a slight risk to it. Whenever I get to interpret the law, I always interpret it in my favor if I can. ...The real trick is to remember what the good and bad parts of each position are and choose the right one. The second trick is to remember what the duties of a CHL are at all times. For example, 30.06 only applies when you are using your CHL authority, but giving the CHL with the Dl to a cop is required anytime you are armed, no matter what the authority for the being armed is. Even an LEO who is a CHL must show both to a cop that stops him for a traffic violation.

Thanks Steve,
I value your opinion highly.

Question2: Is it possible, then, to leave the plastic in the parking lot of Grapevine Mills and not carry under 411.H, but carry as a non-licensed person therefore not being subject to trespassing under 30.06 but UCW instead; and which would be the lesser offense?

That is an interesting question: another good law school test question, as Charles likes to say. 30.06 only applies when carrying under the authority of your CHL. We have determined already that you can choose which authority you are carrying under. Now the question is if you can choose to not use your authority and instead break the law as a criminal.

My gut impression is that you cannot waive the authority. You are a CHL and if you have a weapon on you, it would be presumed to be under that authority unles you could show a different and valid authority also. But, for the most part, I don't think it would matter significantly. Both UCW and 30.06 are Class A misdemeanors. It might even be worse if you accidentally went onto a licensed premise, since that would be a felony for UCW but still a class A for 30.06.

Did you read the manual before you took the chl class?

HGWC wrote:A CHL is something I have, not something I am.

Why not? We live in an acronym filled world and the internet makes the use of them more desirable. You can HAVE a CHL (concealed handgun license) and BE a CHL (concealed handgun licensee) at the same time.

Liberty wrote:I think people try to co-operate with an LEO on a traffic stop in the hope that he will go lenient on the traffic tickets. Its never worked for me.

I never got a warning or any other kind of leniency. So now I'm polite but not helpful.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There are places in the Codes where CHLs are obligated to do certain things or are prohibited from doing other things only if they are carrying pursuant to the the authority of their CHL. Unfortunately, Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 requires a CHL to show the CHL when asked for ID anytime they have a handgun "on or about the license holder's person." This part of the Code is not limited to when we are carrying under the authority of our CHLs. When combined with the Motorist Protection Act, it establishes a higher duty for CHLs than non-CHLs carrying in a motor vehicle.

Case law holds that a gun in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle is "on or about your person," except under limited circumstances.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 should be repealed.

Chas.

HB410 does this.

Chas.