TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:No need to provide a CHL if not armed, and since the general consensus in here seems to be one should only do exactly what the law requires why would you do that? Are you trying to receive courtesy because you are a CHL holder?

When a Texas LEO runs the driver's license, he will find out a person has a CHL. It is illegal (without penalty) to not inform a Texas LEO you have a firearm so if you know they are going to run your DL, you may want to head off questions about your CHL prior to them finding out about it on their own.

In my last stop I was not carrying and it wasn't until the officer and I had the conversation and he informed me I was receiving a warning that I said, "you might want to know I have a CHL but I am currently unarmed" as I handed my CHL to him. He said, "thank you for that" and handed it back then went to his car. I got the warning as promised.

I agree with Ameer above, there should not be a requirement. Police can ask for ID from someone without a CHL for no reason and that private person can ignore the request, there is no law requiring someone to ID themselves walking down the sidewalk not committing any crime, identification is only required when one has been arrested (PC Sec. 38.02.) However, the same officer demands ID from a person with no reason and that person is carrying under their CHL, they must produce ID and CHL (GC §411.205.) Seems to me we give up some of our 4th Amendment rights to exercise the 2nd.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Jaguar wrote:I am not an instructor or LEO, but it seems to me that the law requires one to hand over a CHL with ID when ID is requested while armed, and not to hand it over when ID is requested when not armed, then the only time one would hand over the CHL is when one is armed. Therefore, if a LEO is handed a CHL with ID then the LEO can be fairly certain the person is armed and therefore they have been told the person has a gun.

Personally I do not wish to see the reaction of the LEO to the word “gun” while sitting on the side of the road. Maybe he hasn’t looked at the CHL yet, so when the driver says “I have a gun...” the LEO points his gun at the driver.

So, IMO, when handed a CHL a LEO should know that person has a gun. If the officer wants to know more about the gun (where it is, what I carry in, how often I carry, make, model, caliber, magazine capacity, how it shoots, what it cost, where I purchased it, how I managed such a sweet deal, or when I plan to go shooting again) he needs to ask.

There is no "requirement" NOT to show the CHL when asked for ID when NOT armed. If you want to show it anyway, you certainly can. And it may prevent the LEO returning and asking why you didn't provide it.

Quite true, the last time I was stopped I was unarmed and after the initial conversation with the trooper I handed over my CHL as an afterthought and said, "I'm not armed, but you might want to see this." He handed it back and said thanks. I received a warning - but I was told right off the bat that is what I was getting so the CHL had no effect.

I am not an instructor or LEO, but it seems to me that the law requires one to hand over a CHL with ID when ID is requested while armed, and not to hand it over when ID is requested when not armed, then the only time one would hand over the CHL is when one is armed. Therefore, if a LEO is handed a CHL with ID then the LEO can be fairly certain the person is armed and therefore they have been told the person has a gun.

Personally I do not wish to see the reaction of the LEO to the word “gun” while sitting on the side of the road. Maybe he hasn’t looked at the CHL yet, so when the driver says “I have a gun...” the LEO points his gun at the driver.

So, IMO, when handed a CHL a LEO should know that person has a gun. If the officer wants to know more about the gun (where it is, what I carry in, how often I carry, make, model, caliber, magazine capacity, how it shoots, what it cost, where I purchased it, how I managed such a sweet deal, or when I plan to go shooting again) he needs to ask.