This was almost the identical conversation I had with my State rep about this. It's absurd to have a "duty" to in form when the officer has the data right in front of him when he runs the license.flintknapper wrote: I guess a better question (to my way of thinking) would be: What difference does this knowledge make?
I mean...do officers go on a heightened state of alert to learn there is gun present (other than their own). If so, then the best thing to do would be to treat everyone as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.
If I do NOT present my CHL (and the officer knows the law) then he/she must draw one of two conclusions:
1. I don't have my weapon with me (so didn't present the license as per the law).
2. I do have my weapon but forgot to show I.D. or have some sinister reason not to.
I would much prefer that LEO's assume that law abiding CHL's simply do not have their weapon with them, then to suspect otherwise (assuming no other suspicious activity).
Frankly, I just don't see how knowing a CHL is armed or not benefits the officer in anyway.
I can see where the officer knowing the person is a CHL holder "might" put them at ease a bit....as most are law abiding/reasonable citizens.
For one thing, unless the officer physically confirms (takes control of/or establishes presence) that a firearm exists then he is just taking the word of the CHL.
As far as disarming the CHL holder, the officer unwittingly places him/herself in a position to be ambushed unless they hold you at gun point, remove you from the vehicle, and disarm you "from the position".
It's ridiculous IMO, that we need to show I.D. or disclose our status (armed/unarmed) for a simple traffic stop. It is not required of those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.
All it does is lead to an absolutely unnecessary feeling by the officer to disarm you until they run your license and make sure you're "clean".
JL