TexasCHLforum.com

An interesting thought popped into my head today on the way home from work. I was thinking about the Secret Service situation in Chicago and started to think about requirements for LEO to notify other LEOs that they're armed. Are there any?

I know that some get a CHL, although not required to, but was just curious to see if there was any legal requirement to notify. Clearly, there would more than likely be considerable leeway given and laws could vary state to state, but I'm curious nonetheless.

They just flash their badge when stopped, and everything is cool 98% of the time.

Hawaii is a different story. If the U.S. could divest itself of a state, Hawaii would be a good candidate. Japan seems to want it.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:They just flash their badge when stopped, and everything is cool 98% of the time.

Hawaii is a different story. If the U.S. could divest itself of a state, Hawaii would be a good candidate. Japan seems to want it.

- Jim

Under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, a law enforcement officer carrying his agency's photo ID is allowed to carry a concealed handgun in any state, regardless of that state's permit requirements, with essentially the same privileges as a CHL holder in that state. The law does not contain a notification requirement, but as a matter of courtesy many officers volunteer the information to an officer who asks for ID.

Excaliber covered the most important aspect of the question. Officers are not required to notify, but generally do as a courtesy. Some just ID themselves as officers and it can be assumed they are carrying from that (some ID themselves to say they are carrying and some do it to ask for a break but it works either way).

The quirk in the law is that only CHL's are required to ID in Texas. Even this does not say they have to state they are carrying, though it is kind of implied in the law allowing them to be disarmed. All of the other legal carriers do not have to notify.such as peace officers, travelers, or car carry.

The other quirk in the law is that the peace officer only has a specific legal authority to disarm CHL's. Case and common law has allowed other disarming but it has to be explicitly justified in the reports and when questioned.

This is why I support removing both of these sections of law. A CHL should not have a penalty for obeying the law and getting the license.

With LEOSA we have yet another example of a law that does not enforce itself (only the laws of physics do that). The State of Hawaii tries to ignore LEOSA and they jailed at least one LEO who got crosswise there.

Contemplate this compilation of wonderfulness: http://hawaii.gov/ag/LEO/leosa%20guidel ... 20qleo.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

I was just curious about the legal standpoint, but it sounds like there is no law requiring an LEO to notify another. I presume that the federal law takes precedence over state in this situation (no duty for an LEO with CHL to notify). Thanks for the info!

Hopefully the texas legislature will pass HB 410 removing this requirement for CHL holders. You may be interested in the thread on HB410
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 94&t=21901

seamusTX wrote:With LEOSA we have yet another example of a law that does not enforce itself (only the laws of physics do that). The State of Hawaii tries to ignore LEOSA and they jailed at least one LEO who got crosswise there.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If they don't honor 2A why should they honor LEOSA?