TexasCHLforum.com

rm9792 wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Save who a few minutes, and in what way?

The officer walking back and forth to ask. Maybe not a minutes but whatever. I am always carrying so havent had this issue yet.

Ask what?

Here is my point: The law (the way it is written) simply states that IF you are carrying you MUST present your license when asked for I.D. and if you are NOT then you don't.

The rub comes when LEO don't trust citizens to respond accordingly. If I don't hand the officer my license during a stop THAT MEANS I AM NOT ARMED. No need for a fishing expedition on the officers part. No need for him/her "to make sure". Otherwise....we might as well just do away with the law and require the CHL holder to ALWAYS present. The law is antiquated, unnecessary and in great need of change.

If this is bothersome to LEO, then I suggest they lobby along with the citizenry to have it changed, rather than get all in a bother about it.

Not to mention the fact that citizens carrying a weapon (in their vehicle) under the Motorist Protection Act are not expected/required to divulge any information. So....who does the current law serve? No one! It's basically a pain in the rear for all involved.

Its simple really: If I don't offer my CHL license (which I always do) then it should mean to the officer "I am not carrying", done deal. Unless there is some other reason for the officer to suspect that I am carrying... then he should leave it at that.

If for some reason the officer just feels compelled to "check it out" then any extra time spent walking back and forth is of his own doing. Heck, why stop there? Might as well check me for warrants, ask where I've been, where I am going, where I work, ask for a work number, etc......I mean...theres got to be something I can catch this guy on.

CHL's are rarely a problem for LEO, and there is plenty of other stuff for most officers to be doing other than "double checking" them.

Now, personally....I've never had a problem with an officer knowing I have a CHL or was armed. None (yet) has done more than give a cursory look at it and hand it right back. But there are a few that "get the willies" over the idea that anyone other than them has a gun. That is one reason I think it best that they don't even know.

Just my .02 on it.

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Save who a few minutes, and in what way?

Keith B wrote:To bring this back on topic, I have been canvasing any LEO I have had the opportunity to ask about their preference. Out of 9 officers, 8 said while they know it is no the law, they like, and actually prefer it, if the driver presents their CHL initially whether carrying or not. The 9th officer said it didn't really make him any difference, but it would be more convenient than him having to come back and ask if you are carrying since it shows up on the DL run.

One of the officers was the PIO (Public Information Officer) for a local PD and he said that most of the officers he knows feel that way.

So, while it is not the law, and they know it and will accept that fact, my thought is it may gain you points with the officer to be forthcoming. I just say 'I just want to let you know I am a CHL holder since it will come up when you run my license, but am not carrying at the present time." YMMV depending on what you were doing to get stopped.

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.

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

KBCraig wrote:A non-CHL doesn't even have to reply one way or the other.

You sure?

No law requires a driver to speak during a traffic stop. You've provided your identification; that's all that is required.

I stand corrected then, and will modify my posts accordingly.

Somehow, I thought you must disclose if you were armed or not, but knew that other questions not related to I.D. did not have to be answered (at least not without benefit of legal council).

Thank you for the clarification.

Edited to remove incorrect information: (If an officer asks if you are armed...you must give a reply, same as with any traffic stop).

KBCraig wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Again, you are NOT required by law to display your CHL license when you are NOT carrying. If an officer asks if you are armed...you must give a reply, same as with any traffic stop.

Currently, under the "Motorist Protection Act" you are NOT required to volunteer that you are armed either. Of course, this is separate from CHL laws, but I wanted to point that out as well.

A non-CHL doesn't even have to reply one way or the other.

You sure?

Purplehood wrote:I reiterate, as it showed up on our written test. We were told to SHOW, as it was cause for temporary SUSPENSION.

Class was given at Shiloh in Houston.

§6.43.

FAILURE TO DISPLAY LICENSE ON DEMAND

If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person, then upon demand by a magistrate or a peace officer that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. Violation is a Class B misdemeanor under the Act, §6(i).

Again, you are NOT required by law to display your CHL license when you are NOT carrying.
Currently, under the "Motorist Protection Act" you are NOT required to volunteer that you are armed either. Of course, this is separate from CHL laws, but I wanted to point that out as well.



Edited to remove incorrect information: (If an officer asks if you are armed...you must give a reply, same as with any traffic stop).

Purplehood wrote:I am confused now.

My CHL class instructor is/was a Harris County Deputy and informed us that we should ALWAYS show the CHL. He stated that when running your plates/DL through the squad-car computer a big "CHL" thingie would pop-up. In fact, we were told that if we did not volunteer the CHL thing immediately, it could be suspended.

If you do NOT have your weapon with you, then you are under no obligation (legally speaking) to show your CHL license when asked for identification. Some will argue that it is best to always show it, others see no need to(me included).


With respect to the law however, you do NOT have to show it if you are NOT carrying.

brianko wrote:Some states specifically discourage the display of a CHL unless it's requested by a LEO. For instance, North Carolina warns that "you shold not attempt to display either your weapon or your permit unless directed to by an officer."

I'm not aware of a similar stance in Texas, but I personally am not going to give the officer more information than he or she is expecting from me at a traffic stop. You are doing the officer no favors by handing over more than is required and/or requested. When I was working in federal law enforcement, nothing was more disconcerting than having someone hand you a bunch of documentation, most of which you didn't need or ask for. It takes brain cycles away from more important things, like maintaining situational awareness. If I'm asked for a DL, I hand it over (along with my CHL only if carrying). If I'm asked for my insurance, I hand it over. If the LEO just wants to chat (that has happened before too), I simply sit there and don't try to hand him or her anything.

My recommendation is to not attempt to give the officer your CHL unless required by statute or specifically asked to do so.

Yes, I know its shocking to see me agree with brianco, but I do this time.