TexasCHLforum.com

"August 11, 2009 - HB 2730 is the DPS’s Sunset Legislation, and many of the DPS-related bills this session were included in HB 2730. Notable traffic and criminal laws that go into effect on Sept. 1....."

This is a must read by everyone....not only CHL holders are affected by enactments of new legislation, but some traffic laws have changed as well. There's a separate section devoted to CHL.

Full Text:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s ... 081109.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I guess we be hiring more LEO's to watch for that cellphone use...what's next...no driving in the school zone I need my CHL now...Doh can't carry in a school zone or use my phone, what if it's in my hand, are they going to check to see if I was texting, Hmmm will they need a warrant ? or do they issue a ticket I get it I must be concealed

Btw good info

Thanks for the link joe817...a good informative read.

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.

HB 2664 provides a defense to prosecution if a concealed handgun license holder carries a concealed handgun into an establishment that gets 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, but has failed to post the statutorily required notice that it derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

I'm confused. I thought the 51% was for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The PDF linked above makes no reference to where these beverages are are consumed, only that they are sold.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

HB 2664 provides a defense to prosecution if a concealed handgun license holder carries a concealed handgun into an establishment that gets 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, but has failed to post the statutorily required notice that it derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages.

I'm confused. I thought the 51% was for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption. The PDF linked above makes no reference to where these beverages are are consumed, only that they are sold.

The link is to a pamphlet that is summarizing the statute, so may not be 100% accurate. 51% only applies to a business that makes 51% or more of their revenue form the sale of alcohol on/off-site consumption. In other words, they have to be licensed for on-site consumption, but their total sale of alcohol (for on/off site) must be 51% or greater to qualify.

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.

Beiruty wrote: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.

joe817 wrote:

Beiruty wrote: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.

Same here: However, it is good to know who LEO do behave in such cases.

OK, so if I'm on vacation in Wisconsin next month, snoop around a local gun store and find a pistol I gotta have, I can buy it on the spot?

Rex B wrote:OK, so if I'm on vacation in Wisconsin next month, snoop around a local gun store and find a pistol I gotta have, I can buy it on the spot?

You can try, but it depends on what the laws in Wisconsin are.

Beiruty wrote: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 think the answer to this question has to do with why are they asking for the CHL?

The new law is to decriminalize (or remove the penalty) someone failing to show their CHL when they are asked for ID while they are carrying. Probably the most frequent incidence of this would be a traffic stop. However, I could see other times when a police officer may ask for your ID, and if you are carrying, you now do not have a penalty if you fail to show your CHL along with your id.

It's not saying that if an officer finds that you are carrying and asks to see your CHL that you can refuse to supply the CHL without penalty. Presumably if you were found to be carrying and did not display your CHL then there is some chance you may be arrested for unlawful carrying of a weapon. The CHL can keep you from a UCW charge.

But the point is that if you are being asked by a police officer for your ID and it has nothing to do with carrying a gun, then there is no penalty if you do not show the officer your CHL along with your DL or other ID.

Rex B wrote:OK, so if I'm on vacation in Wisconsin next month, snoop around a local gun store and find a pistol I gotta have, I can buy it on the spot?

Possibly, but I believe it would still have to be shipped to an FFL in Texas and you would have to have them make the transfer. You would not be allowed to take it with you in Wisconsin.

Keith B wrote:

Rex B wrote:OK, so if I'm on vacation in Wisconsin next month, snoop around a local gun store and find a pistol I gotta have, I can buy it on the spot?

Possibly, but I believe it would still have to be shipped to an FFL in Texas and you would have to have them make the transfer. You would not be allowed to take it with you in Wisconsin.

I could have done that before the law changed. No different than buying over the phone or online.

mr.72 wrote: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!