TexasCHLforum.com

Last night I had gotten out of work late and stopped by my church to check the doors and lights.

On the way home at 104 AM, I noticed a Lake Dallas police cruiser behind me. I made 2 textbook, long stops at
2 stop signs. Then he lit me up and pulled me over. I figured that this was a late night roust just to see who I
was and why I was out at that hour.

I was blinded by his 2 bright takedown lights on his light bar, as well as both of the A-pillar mounted spotlights,
so I could not see which officer it was. I know 2 of the 2nd/3rd shift LDPD officers, who are familar with who I am
and why I am out late at night (work late/check church property). As the officer walked up slowly, I asked
"Are you <Officer A/Officer B?>, figuring that it was someone else, but I would let him know I knew his 2 peers by name.

The encounter went like this, with the funny question highlighted in color:
SIA - What's the reason for the stop?
LD - You have a plastic cover over your license plate. May I see your license?

Since I was carrying both of my guns, I had not gone for my wallet and had both hands resting in plain sight
on my driver's door windowsill.

SIA - Let me tell you that my wallet is in my cargo pants, I'm a CHL, and I'm carrying 2.
Let me know how you want to proceed.
LD - You're carrying 2? Where is your wallet and where are your guns?
SIA - The wallet's in my left front cargo pants pocket, I have one in my right front pocket, and the other one is
in my seatbelt holster, concealed by a towel.
LD, sounding surprised - You have one in a seatbelt holster?
SIA - Yes.

LD - Are they both loaded?
SIA - Of course!

LD shines his Maglite on my left front pants pocket and tells me to go ahead and get my DL/CHL out.
The stop lasted about 18 minutes, which seemed forever.

Outcome: Warning for obstructed plate, but he never said "take it off".

Since then I have just laughed and laughed at the "Are they both loaded?" question.

If they weren't loaded, I'd have to use them like the BG's who shot at Superman, then threw their
empty snubbies at him. That's not the highest and best use of handguns, IMHO. :-)

SIA

I guess his surprise can be explained by, "Why on earth do you have two loaded guns on you?" The correct answer, of course, would be, "Because I could not find room for the third one!" That spare mag, flashlight, tatical blade, and Leatherman tool take up too much room.

RJ

johnson0317 wrote:I guess his surprise can be explained by, "Why on earth do you have two loaded guns on you?" The correct answer, of course, would be, "Because I could not find room for the third one!" That spare mag, flashlight, tatical blade, and Leatherman tool take up too much room.

RJ

I always thought the correct answer was "Because I only have two hands."

I bet he had two guns on him.

steve817 wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:I guess his surprise can be explained by, "Why on earth do you have two loaded guns on you?" The correct answer, of course, would be, "Because I could not find room for the third one!" That spare mag, flashlight, tatical blade, and Leatherman tool take up too much room.

RJ

I always thought the correct answer was "Because I only have two hands."

There should be a like button.


As far as when somebody asks if a firearm is loaded, I usually reply that it isn't much use empty.

gigag04 wrote:I bet he had two guns on him.

I bet he did too. Probably both loaded. Hopefully same caliber.

RJ

Truth in disclosure: My current EDC gun, and my BUG are not of the same caliber. They really should be, especially if you have one of the Glocks that can interchange magazines with another bigger or smaller version of the same gun. My EDC is a Glock 30 and the BUG is a Kahr PM9. Just can not afford everything I would like at one time.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:LD - You have a plastic cover over your license plate. May I see your license?

I know ALL of the license is supposed to be visible and not obscured in any way but this is one of those nit-picky little infractions that give them the go ahead to pull you over if they want. I know several cops that won't even mess with that as a reason to make a stop unless they just can't find anything else but feel that a contact is still needed for one reason or another.
Bottom line, I think he was just bored.

Is there still a fine for this after January 1st? It would be funny if there's no fine for no license plate but you can get fined if you have a license plate and put a Bevo sticker on it.

tbrown wrote:Is there still a fine for this after January 1st? It would be funny if there's no fine for no license plate but you can get fined if you have a license plate and put a Bevo sticker on it.

Did they change the law about license plates?

texasag93 wrote:

tbrown wrote:Is there still a fine for this after January 1st? It would be funny if there's no fine for no license plate but you can get fined if you have a license plate and put a Bevo sticker on it.

Did they change the law about license plates?

IMHO just because there is not fine for the license plate does not remove the requirement to have one. Even though there is no fine, I bet they will tack on the court costs associate with processing the ticket. The court costs normally exceed $100.00.

It is my understanding that the penalty clause got left out of the rewrite of the section of the law that deals with license plates. This may or may not affect the section on altered or fictitious plates (that is where it mentions license plate covers).

But if we accept that the removal of the penalty for not displaying your CHL when asked by a peace officer means that there is no real violation, then we have to accept that the removal of the penalty for not properly displaying license plates means there is no violation there also. I really can't wait to see how the AG rules on this. The claim that the penalty is implied is, IMHO, ridiculous.

Can someone point to the new law or elaborate?

Is the law about the covering or display of the plate, or the presence of one all together?
Is there still a requirement for a front plate?

Scott in Houston wrote:Can someone point to the new law or elaborate?

Is the law about the covering or display of the plate, or the presence of one all together?
Is there still a requirement for a front plate?

The new laws have not yet been posted on the state website (they generally take until mid January), so I cannot say exactly what the law reads yet. News accounts recently in the Austin area have been reporting that the legislature made a mistake and left out the penalty clause of the registration law when they rewrote that section of the law. I think, but am not sure they are talking about HB 2357. It is a very long rewrite of several chapters of the Transportation Code that I have not tracked through yet, and I can see how it would be easy to miss adding a clause somewhere in this. All of my comments have been based on news reports, so I probably should have refrained from commenting until I know for sure. But commenting on the legislature making a mistake is just to hard to resist, and it is usually a good bet that they have messed at least one thing up in each law they pass.

Scott in Houston wrote:Can someone point to the new law or elaborate?

Is the law about the covering or display of the plate, or the presence of one all together?
Is there still a requirement for a front plate?

There was a post earlier about this.


viewtopic.php?f=94&t=50552&p=616196" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

srothstein wrote:But commenting on the legislature making a mistake is just to hard to resist,
and it is usually a good bet that they have messed at least one thing up in each law they pass.

"We've now passed the healthcare bill.
Now we'll find out what's in it."

Nancy Pelosi

:-)

SIA