TexasCHLforum.com

bizarrenormality wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:You DO have a requirement to tell the LEO if you are carrying under a CHL once he has asked for ID.. Point is he asked for ID.. not if he asks about a weapon,,,which may or may not come next.

A slight correction. If I have a handgun on/about my person, I'm required to display my CHL along with my ID when a peace officer or magistrate demands ID. I'm not required to volunteer information about firearms or other weapons.

Absolutely.. correct.. Thanks

I was under the assumption here in the Texas Concealed Handgun forum and this thread specifically it was a given we were discussing handguns carried under the provisions of MPA and CHL.

I could have been more detailed in my response to make that clear..

3dfxMM wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:He has no CHL yet so that requirement is not relevant...under MPA, don't mention it until asked about it.

Both carry under CHL and MPA is being discussed in this thread, hence my use of the words "confusing language in this thread"

Additionally the OP stated he is set to receive his CHL in the mail.. Further encouraging me to get the clear requirement to inform if carrying under CHL in this thread. No harm, no foul intended,, if it is knowledge YOU do not need, throw it away.. Perhaps it will help someone though.

What I was trying to convey earlier (and clearly not succeeding) is that there is no requirement to tell the officer you have a weapon. If he asks, then yes, you should tell him. There are a lot of folks on here and elsewhere who will show their CHL whether carrying or not. I am one of them. However, I am of the opinion that doing that is sufficient. If the officer wants to know more he will ask.

Im not positive.. But I think I disagree

You DO have a requirement to tell the LEO if you are carrying under a CHL once he has asked for ID.. Point is he asked for ID.. not if he asks about a weapon,,,which may or may not come next..

But normally the first thing in my experience the very first thing they do upon making contact, is, "Sir, may I have your license,. Registration and proof of insurance?" . From that second on, you MUST inform him, by way of providing your CHL.. That was my point... You can not wait till he asks about a weapon.

Perhaps we are stating the same thing and Im just missing it.. If so, please excuse my confusion.

RogueUSMC wrote:

Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value.
- Louis L'Amour

lol...it's all good...is there knowledge you don't need?

Yes.. I have no current need to know the airspeed of an unlading swallow.. African or European

RogueUSMC wrote:He has no CHL yet so that requirement is not relevant...under MPA, don't mention it until asked about it.

Both carry under CHL and MPA is being discussed in this thread, hence my use of the words "confusing language in this thread"

Additionally the OP stated he is set to receive his CHL in the mail.. Further encouraging me to get the clear requirement to inform if carrying under CHL in this thread. No harm, no foul intended,, if it is knowledge YOU do not need, throw it away.. Perhaps it will help someone though.

Blandtastic wrote:Point taken. I will only tell what I am legally required to and nothing else. Thanks for the linky.

I’m sure you know.. but I see some confusing language in this thread..
There is requirement to inform once asked for ID, the lack of penalty does not take away the requirement to inform.

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands 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.

Not sure of anyone else, but I've never been stopped, or contacted as a witness and NOT asked for ID..... That means in 47 years, every single one of my LEO contacts would have required me to inform IAW current TX law.
IOW as far as I can tell.. The requirement to inform a LEO you are carrying a concealed weapon under a CHL is about as close to a 100% requirement as there can be…

LEO’s here… In all the stops you have made,,, did you ever pull someone over and NOT ask for ID?

Again, still... may we (I) have the names of those officers you keep talking to?

I don't disbelieve you, not flaming you for your story.. but nothing your posting reflects what i am hearing from KPD and other LEO's, or this mornings Desk Sergeant at the KPD station.

When i relate this story, I get the deer in the headlights response, and am told,, MPA is common knowledge, Taught in classes they take as part of becoming a patrol officer, somthing the Training officer will discuss during probation period. And in fact, I have not met an officer yet that does not approach and consider every person they contact to be armed, precisely because of MPA and the large amount of honest citizens that have a CHL.

They all ask me.. WHO is this guy talking to.... they want to know..... I assume, to get the other side of the story, and correct the issue if there is one.

Thanks

JALLEN wrote:

RottenApple wrote: LEOs aren't paid to know the law, they are paid to enforce it.

This begs the question how can they enforce the law if they don't know what it is? A policeman must accurately know, be familiar with the black and white requirements, if not the subtleties, nuances and arcane interpretations. The consequence of not understanding them is needless bad arrests, lost cases, crimes going on under his nose, etc..... very unsatisfactory!

The fact is that most of them do not know the criminal law that thoroughly, other than the area they are working in. A traffic beat guy knows the traffic laws, the robbery detail knows those laws, the bunko squad, the vice squad know their areas, in some detail.

If it was easy everybody would do it, but it isn't and they don't.

Agreed,, and it is one of the things I bristle at..
LEOs... ok Most LEO's become reasonable subject matter experts on the laws they routinely enforce,, Really good ones stay update on those laws as they change year to year.
But they will rarely know more than the average citizen on coipus laws not in their daily view. And I respect, understand and acknowledge that to be normal and acceptable.. there are way too many laws on the books to know them all.. .. Judges have law clerks doing research for them on the laws of a case in court... because even they .. experts on the law, can not be up to date on all case law, rulings, and laws on the books.

Sir you in violation of PC 123.321,, And when replied with "i did not know that was against the law" the response is often, ignorance of the law is no excuse..

It's a game called stump the chump.... many Military leaders in the day excelled at it... Pick up any manual, regulation, manual for Courts Martial.. and that low mentality leader can read the book.. find a snippet of info, law, regulation,, then go to a Person or group and say,, what is XYZ?, or why are you doing that it's against the regs, rules, procedure..... acting the expert, but in reality, hours before they had no such knowledge either..

I have seen that in a a FEW LEO's as well... but most, when it is politely pointed out in conversation, that law xyz changed in last year's Session and became effective 9 months ago.. reply with.. What?? Really, huh, I did not know that...

RX8er wrote:I hope this isn't going to turn in to a LEO bashing thread.

Mamma always told me that there are three sides to a story, "His, hers and somewhere in the middle, the truth".

Exactly, nor is it my desire / intent to turn it against the OP..

At this point I just want to understand more of the encounter and those he had contact with..

Blandtastic wrote:Apparently the KPD unofficial policy is harassment and intimidation towards anyone with a concealed handgun under Texas House Bill 1815. There is no official policy but they are told to arrest anyone who has a gun concealed "within reach".

Can you further expand your position for this comment?

What led you to understand this (and no flame that it is your opinion, just trying to understand who you came to your conclusion)
Im not a LEO,, and have no illusions that those KPD officers I know tell me all the good secrets they have on secret internal policy procedures.... But My experience having been pulled over in Killeen by LEOS I have never met, and sharing more than a few beers at my house and theres with KPD folks I do know.. leads me to a personal opinion that differs from your statement above..

I just want to understand how you came to that position.

Thanks

Please tell me the name of the officer.. or just badge number, same difference.. I know a few KPD LEOS, from street level and up.. I've met the Chief twice... and NONE I know of have the attitude you describe.. Of course, I've not met even 20%.. of KPD officers so who knows.. But I'd love to ask around about this one in particular.

BTW I live just outside Killeen, I work in Killeen, I drive in and through Killeen every day.. I've been stopped a few times (my own fault.. though never cited) and interacted with KPD as a witness several times, down ride alongs, and on occasion go riding or have a BBQ with two or more KPD officers.... Thats the background on my observation and position of KPD...and it greatly differs from yours.