TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

E.Marquez wrote: Two plates required, TC says it's a violation if not two, but no penalty is assigned, so no way for a court to claim jurisdiction nor adjudicate the citation if written.

Got a cite? I find it interesting to be stopped for an offense that I can be fined for...

Rex B wrote:

gdanaher wrote:.

My rule would be "Use the least reflective plates on the front of the vehicle". (LIDAR)

gdanaher wrote:What's the rule about a plate that is perfectly legible but whose reflective surface no longer reflects? I have a specialty plate that can be used on multiple vehicles--same number on all cars. The plates on my car were new in 1995. They've been on 3 or 4 cars, but since they aren't dinged, I use them and keep the new ones they send me on the shelf. No rule that says I have to have a new plate--just that the plate must agree with the registration. I currently have a lifetime supply--2 new sets of blue on white stamped, 2 sets of red, white, and blue flat digital, and one of the new black and burnt orange on white digitals. One of these days those on the car might need to be replaced!!

atouk wrote:That's a tough decision. Who is more likely to get the facts wrong, a bureaucrat or a journalist?

C-dub wrote:

apostate wrote:Either way, you're still required to display the registration sticker and inspection sticker, so remember to keep them current.

Of course, but it seems that some are under the impression that the penalty was removed when it was actually the requirement to display both plates. I remember telling my wife about this over a month ago and we just saw it for the first time on the news last night. They said that the Dallas PD Chief said they were still going to stop folks without even just the front plate if they felt the need or something like that. My first thought was also that if they do find something else how are they going to make the case for probable cause when there wasn't any crime to begin with. Sounds a lot like the Minneapolis police chief saying they will continue to stop anyone that openly carries a gun even though it is legal.

geekwagun wrote:
She's too pretty to put holes in the bumper.

geekwagun wrote:

All you are doing is uglying up your dash.

I agree, but the front plate has to be displayed, its the law , but the law doesn't specify it must be on the bumper This would probably be a judgment call by the officer who pulls me over.

I see so many cars without the front plate its ridiculous. But, I did have a friend recently get a $200 fine recently.

She's too pretty to put holes in the bumper.

geekwagun wrote:There will no longer be a fine for not having license plates - I read it as the front plate is not required and rear plate is now optional since there is no fine imposed for not having plates displayed.

I bought a new car and didn't put the front plate on the bumper, its in the front window. As of Jan 1 the front plate will not be in the window anymore, but I will keep the rear plate on. No reason to draw any more attention from law enforcement than needed.

I posted this a while back on a car forum and there was a LEO that said they have not been made aware of the change (yet). What about the LEO's on here? What is your take on this law? The AG was supposedly reviewing this, any news from them yet?