Required Presentation of CHL when NOT Carrying?

[RicosRevenge]

So, do I have to or not???

[Keith B]

So, do I have to or not???

No, you do not HAVE to. But it is a good idea since they will find out anyway and ask about it.

[puma guy]

Sorry if flagellating the proverbial equine beast, here. But........A deffinitive answer would be greatly appreciated if there is someone who will go that far. I rarely drink, but if I anticipate that I might imbibe I leave my CCW and CHL at home since, I interpreted the law to present CHL only when carrying. ????? Ofcourse I could just make sure I always carry my CHL regardless, but it's nice to know and understand the law.

I'm not sure what definitive answer you are asking for. There is absolutely no question that you are only required to present your CHL if asked to identify yourself and you are carrying on the authority of your CHL at the time.

No handgun or about your person-->not carrying under the authority of your CHL-->no requirement to present CHL if asked to identify yourself (and no requirement to present ID if not driving).

Thanks. That's the way I interpreted.

[jamisjockey]

Sorry if flagellating the proverbial equine beast, here. But........A deffinitive answer would be greatly appreciated if there is someone who will go that far. I rarely drink, but if I anticipate that I might imbibe I leave my CCW and CHL at home since, I interpreted the law to present CHL only when carrying. ????? Ofcourse I could just make sure I always carry my CHL regardless, but it's nice to know and understand the law.

To clarify:
You are only required to show your CHL when you are asked for ID and you are carrying a handgun.

And there is absolutely no penalty under Texas law for not providing the officer with your CHL if you are carrying.

The cop was wrong.

[bigred90gt]

RoyGBiv, I guess there is... I'll try the old touch football routine next time... ONE mississippi, TWO mississippi...

There is no requirement to stop for any given time at a stop sign or light. The only requirement is to come to a complete stop.

[Mel]

RoyGBiv, I guess there is... I'll try the old touch football routine next time... ONE mississippi, TWO mississippi...

There is no requirement to stop for any given time at a stop sign or light. The only requirement is to come to a complete stop.

Actually I believe the rule is; You must come to a complete stop; AND THEN proceed only when it is safe to do so.

[bigred90gt]

RoyGBiv, I guess there is... I'll try the old touch football routine next time... ONE mississippi, TWO mississippi...

There is no requirement to stop for any given time at a stop sign or light. The only requirement is to come to a complete stop.

Actually I believe the rule is; You must come to a complete stop; AND THEN proceed only when it is safe to do so.

Yes, this is true, but it is not really relevant to the discussion and I just figured it was common sense not to proceed when it was NOT safe to do so. I was just pointing out that there is no requirement to be stopped for any given period of time, only a requirement to come to a complete stop.

[Keith B]

RoyGBiv, I guess there is... I'll try the old touch football routine next time... ONE mississippi, TWO mississippi...

There is no requirement to stop for any given time at a stop sign or light. The only requirement is to come to a complete stop.

Actually I believe the rule is; You must come to a complete stop; AND THEN proceed only when it is safe to do so.

Yes, this is true, but it is not really relevant to the discussion and I just figured it was common sense not to proceed when it was NOT safe to do so. I was just pointing out that there is no requirement to be stopped for any given period of time, only a requirement to come to a complete stop.

If you are 2 states to the east of us, then they require you to count like that before proceeding.

Seriously, only a complete stop is all that is technically required. We were taught in uniform traffic school that if the momentum of the vehicle had not settled (i.e. the body of the vehicle was still moving from a real fast stop), then a complete stop was not made. It is still a questionable thing.

In the OP's case, sounds like this officer was using this as his supposed probable cause to stop the vehicle, then go fishing.

Which bring up a question for the active LEO's on the forum. Do the dashcams these days record all the time or only when the emergency lights are turned on? I know they can be manually activated, but wondered if in general the supposed improper stop at the stop sign would have been on video if in the view of the dashcam?

[srothstein]

Which bring up a question for the active LEO's on the forum. Do the dashcams these days record all the time or only when the emergency lights are turned on? I know they can be manually activated, but wondered if in general the supposed improper stop at the stop sign would have been on video if in the view of the dashcam?

It depends on the camera. A lot of the cars will still have VHS based cameras. Some have cameras that are digital but record directly to a DVD. These only record when they are activated. But a lot of the newer cameras are always on and recording. They record to a temporary loop that is constantly being overwritten. The loop size can depend on the camera and some are adjustable. These cameras will save the last 3 minutes or 30 seconds of time before they were actually activated.

There are lots of ways to activate them now. Most can be done manually or activate automatically when the red lights or siren come on. Some are also set to activate if a crash is detected, and a few even activate under hard braking or sudden lateral movement like a swerve. Someone got smart and realized that cops may need evidence to investigate an accident or near miss, so these last two are becoming more popular.

[Mike1951]

I have had my CHL since 95 and as I recall, it has always been to present if carrying was the law. It was never a felony but could be grounds for suspension of your CHL.

Actually, as the law was initially passed, there was a clause requiring you to display your CHL whether carrying or not.

From SB60:

(g) On a demand by a magistrate or a peace officer that a license holder display the license holder's handgun license, the license holder shall display both the license and the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department.
(h) 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.
(i) A person commits an offense if the person fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by Subsection (g) or (h) of this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

(g) applied if you weren't carrying. (h) applied if you were.

I believe it was corrected as early as 1997, possibly 1999.

[cbr600]

But even way back in the previous century, it still wasn't a felony.

[puma guy]

Seriously, only a complete stop is all that is technically required. We were taught in uniform traffic school that if the momentum of the vehicle had not settled (i.e. the body of the vehicle was still moving from a real fast stop), then a complete stop was not made. It is still a questionable thing.


Which bring up a question for the active LEO's on the forum. Do the dashcams these days record all the time or only when the emergency lights are turned on? I know they can be manually activated, but wondered if in general the supposed improper stop at the stop sign would have been on video if in the view of the dashcam?

Would that be forward momentum or the backward lurch from suspension?

[ScottDLS]

I have had my CHL since 95 and as I recall, it has always been to present if carrying was the law. It was never a felony but could be grounds for suspension of your CHL.

Actually, as the law was initially passed, there was a clause requiring you to display your CHL whether carrying or not.

From SB60:

(g) On a demand by a magistrate or a peace officer that a license holder display the license holder's handgun license, the license holder shall display both the license and the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department.
(h) 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.
(i) A person commits an offense if the person fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by Subsection (g) or (h) of this section. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

(g) applied if you weren't carrying. (h) applied if you were.

I believe it was corrected as early as 1997, possibly 1999.

I don't have my '95 CHL handbook handy, but the way I read that section...unless the Peace Officer or Magistrate specifically demanded that you show your CHL OR you were carrying AND the Magistrate/PO asked for ID, then you didn't have to produce it.

Eg. I'm walking down the street in 1996 and PO says "show me ID!". I don't have to show CHL unless I'm carrying.

Actually, I (generally) don't have to do anything or even acknowldege PO per 4th/5th amendment and numerous SCOTUS decisions....but that's off topic.

I'm in court in 1996 defending myself against a UCW and Magistrate say, show me your CHL! I must do it or suffer suspension, or second time a Class B.

In 2011 there is no penalty.