TexasCHLforum.com

Elvis wrote: Then are you saying there is no requirement for a CHL holder to notify the Officer if they are carrying in their vehicle because they now fall under the exception in 46.02?

That is what he is saying. I want to point out that, as I read the law, it says nothing about notifying the Officer you are carrying. The law only requires displaying the CHL license.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 wrote: § 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY.
(a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license
holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that
the license holder display identification, the license holder shall
display both the license holder's driver's license or
identification certificate issued by the department and the license
holder's handgun license.

I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

thats my question

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

Sorry, can't answer that one. I'll have to defer to the Legal Eagles on this.

WildBill wrote:

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

I'll have to defer to the Legal Eagles on this one.

Legal Eagles?????

sounds like something Stephen Colbert would call himself

lunchbox wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Elvis wrote:I understand that you are not required to tell the Officer you have a gun, only required to display the license, that is clear from the language. My issue is that you have a CHL, yet you are going to ignore the requirement to display your license because you choose to carry under the exemption of 46.02? Then why is G.C. 411.205 still on the books and enforceable?

I'll have to defer to the Legal Eagles on this one.

Legal Eagles?????
sounds like something Stephen Colbert would call himself

Actually, it's from an old Robert Redford movie.

im not old enough to have seen it im sure

lunchbox wrote:im not old enough to have seen it im sure

It's not that good of a movie, but you can always rent the video.

Go back and read the UCW law it clearly states:

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: 6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the
person is carrying.

So if 46.02 does not apply to a person with a Valid License I might go along with an argument that you are OK if your CHL license Is NOT Valid.

Sound like it could be a conflict in law if you were lucky enough to find someone at DPS or an asst. DA at your Class B trial to go along with your logic. I am going to continue to teach my students they must display their license when required. Having been involved in a criminal case or two I can hear the argument going something like, “But I was using the exemption under 46.02 as a traveler” “that’s fine, but we are not charging you with a violation of 46.02, we are charging you with failing to display as required” “But I don’t want to be charged with failing to display as required” “Too bad, you should have just shown the Officer your CHL”

Elvis wrote:Sound like it could be a conflict in law if you were lucky enough to find someone at DPS or an asst. DA at your Class B trial to go along with your logic. I am going to continue to teach my students they must display their license when required. Having been involved in a criminal case or two I can hear the argument going something like, “But I was using the exemption under 46.02 as a traveler” “that’s fine, but we are not charging you with a violation of 46.02, we are charging you with failing to display as required” “But I don’t want to be charged with failing to display as required” “Too bad, you should have just shown the Officer your CHL”

that right there is what is wrong with the legal system

lunchbox wrote:

Elvis wrote:Sound like it could be a conflict in law if you were lucky enough to find someone at DPS or an asst. DA at your Class B trial to go along with your logic. I am going to continue to teach my students they must display their license when required. Having been involved in a criminal case or two I can hear the argument going something like, “But I was using the exemption under 46.02 as a traveler” “that’s fine, but we are not charging you with a violation of 46.02, we are charging you with failing to display as required” “But I don’t want to be charged with failing to display as required” “Too bad, you should have just shown the Officer your CHL”

that right there is what is wrong with the legal system

That is the reality of the legal system.

Elvis wrote:

lunchbox wrote:

Elvis wrote:Sound like it could be a conflict in law if you were lucky enough to find someone at DPS or an asst. DA at your Class B trial to go along with your logic. I am going to continue to teach my students they must display their license when required. Having been involved in a criminal case or two I can hear the argument going something like, “But I was using the exemption under 46.02 as a traveler” “that’s fine, but we are not charging you with a violation of 46.02, we are charging you with failing to display as required” “But I don’t want to be charged with failing to display as required” “Too bad, you should have just shown the Officer your CHL”

that right there is what is wrong with the legal system

That is the reality of the legal system.

that may be however i am still discontent with it

lunchbox wrote:that may be however i am still discontent with it

It is what it is. If you are so "discontent", perhaps you should consider running for office and do something about it.

Crossfire wrote:

lunchbox wrote:that may be however i am still discontent with it

It is what it is. If you are so "discontent", perhaps you should consider running for office and do something about it.

yeah cuz 21 year olds have a real high electability
i would love to "do something about it" but i dont see who i could get anyone to listen to me