Concealed handgun: Sept 1st 2009

[Commander]

I understand that we are still required to identify. I was wondering if the confliction of CHL vs Motorist Protection Act had been some of the catalyst for the removal of the penalty. I seem to recall that there was some discussion to eliminate the requirement for CHL holders to identify, but that went nowhere.

[boomerang]

I seem to recall that there was some discussion to eliminate the requirement for CHL holders to identify, but that went nowhere.

That would make too much sense.

post redacted

[C-dub]

That's true, but I think Charles mentioned that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to bring that up. It might lead to changes that would require one carrying under the MPA to notify an officer when they were stopped. I guess we didn't want to risk having one group get more freedom for another getting less freedom. Maybe this will be addressed in time.

[boomerang]

Fine. Fine. Fine. How about this?

A peace officer in street clothes spending time with her family on her day off doesn't have to notify.

A federal agent or other special investigator in plain clothes doesn't have to notify.

A convicted felon carrying illegally doesn't have to notify.

[C-dub]

Oh believe me, I understand and agree, but all in good time. Our rights were eroded away over time and we shouldn't expect to have them all returned at once. We're getting there.

[03Lightningrocks]

I bet the officers on the street will take awhile to get this new law down. Anyone that decides not to show, may want to be prepared to deal with some confusion and hassle. At least for a few months.

[dicion]

I bet the officers on the street will take awhile to get this new law down. Anyone that decides not to show, may want to be prepared to deal with some confusion and hassle. At least for a few years.

Fixed

After all, some LEO still aren't aware of the 2007 law changes, judging by some of the stories on these forums.

[03Lightningrocks]

I bet the officers on the street will take awhile to get this new law down. Anyone that decides not to show, may want to be prepared to deal with some confusion and hassle. At least for a few years.

Fixed

After all, some LEO still aren't aware of the 2007 law changes, judging by some of the stories on these forums.

[chamberc]

I bet the officers on the street will take awhile to get this new law down. Anyone that decides not to show, may want to be prepared to deal with some confusion and hassle. At least for a few years.

Fixed

After all, some LEO still aren't aware of the 2007 law changes, judging by some of the stories on these forums.

Absolutely true... or their wise a** police cheifs decide to "ignore" the law, as in the case with Harris county and the safe motorist law.

[srothstein]

Well, just to give you guys an idea on ho wlong it will take for the police to know, there are only a few classes that have gone out yet. I almost always write one based on taking the two law books (Lexis-Nexis Criminal and traffic Guides - use to be Gould's version) and writing up a class on the differences. I have no tyet received my copy of the new law book (subscription order) or seen one. I just checked and the Lexis web site says they are finally available, so I will be calling them soon.

But if I take two weeks going through the book, it means I cannot start training officers until mid September at least. One of the flaws in our training system has always been getting the new laws out. TCLEOSE did not release their class updates until January, and some officers were still taking the TCLEOSE course with last session's updates this July. I don't know if TCLEOSE will even do an updates class now since the law on required police training was also changed (I think it went through as part of the DPS bill).

[boomerang]

What does TCLEOSE teach now? Even before September 1st, failure to notify (first offense) is not a misdemeanor or a felony. The peace officer can prepare an affidavit and send it to DPS but the suspension is up to DPS (and possibly a JP.)

[srothstein]

I don't remember TCLEOSE having anything about the weapons laws, per se, in the course. The law required updates on family violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and similar subjects. TCLEOSE generally stuck pretty much to those areas though it might have had a few tangentially related (such as CHL suspension while under protective order) weapons laws.

For TCLEOSE mandated courses, and many suggested but not required ones, anyone can download the material from their web site. Select "Courses, Surveys, and Reports" from the menu on the left, then "courses" in the main window, then "Instructor outlines" in the window again and a list of the material will appear. You can download either PDF or Word versions of most courses. Course 3232, Special Investigative Topics, is the closest TCLEOSE has to a mandatory legal update class.

Or, click here if this works properly.

[ScottDLS]

Here is my two cents.
1- I dont drink or go into bars. I am as opposed to carrying and drinking as I am to drinking and driving. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

2- I will continue to provide any LEO that stops me with both CHL and DL, as well as telling him that I am a CHL holder and that I am carrying. I will tell him I am ex LEO, and if he feels better disarming me then I will be happy to allow him to do so. I have done this since the day I had a CHL, I did this prior to CHL and I have NEVER had any LEO disarm me, nor have I ever received a ticket.

Here's my 2 cents.

1) I drink and go in bars. Sometimes I have a meal and drink. I am as opposed to drinking and going to work as I am to drinking and driving. Work and alcohol don't mix, unless you're a bartender. I don't go armed into 51% establishments on purpose. I wouldn't carry a firearm while intoxicated.

2) If I am carrying under the authority of my CHL and a Texas Peace Officer or Magistrate asks me for identification, I will produce my DL and CHL. That is unless I happen to have forgotten them (unlikely). In that case I will display neither, since I don't have them. I will not tell him that I'm ex-LEO, since I'm not... and it's irrelevant. I won't tell him that I'm ex-military, since... it's irrelevant. Since I've had my CHL sometimes I've received traffic a ticket and sometimes I haven't. When carrying, I've produced my CHL and when I wasn't, I didn't. I never had a LEO disarm me.

Once in 1992 before the CHL law, I was stopped by a Texas Peace Officer. I wasn't carrying a handgun because it was illegal to do so, and I didn't have a defense to prosecution. I didn't tell her that I was ex-military (honorable discharge 90 days earlier), because it was irrelevant. She saw a base sticker on my car and asked me where I served and when I got out. Since she asked, I decided to tell her. I didn't get a ticket...Why? Maybe because I didn't commit a traffic offense. We'll never know.

I didn't get CHL to prove I was a good guy. I got it initially so I could have a Defense to Prosecution for carrying a concealed handgun. Then after 1997, so I was exempt from most PC46.02 prohibitions on carrying a handgun.

[casingpoint]

This discussion wouldn't be happening if there were no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms in Texas.

[chamberc]

This discussion wouldn't be happening if there were no infringements on the right to keep and bear arms in Texas.

Agreed. Not sure why people mis-read, "shall not be infringed".