Texas statute 411.205 requiring a CHL holder to present ID

[srothstein]

Section 411.205 is still a valid law requiring you to give your DL and LTC to a peace officer who demands ID. However, in 2009, the penalty for it was removed. The penalty was not criminal, but a civil act to suspend the LTC for one year.

You cannot be arrested for a violation of 411.205 because it was never a criminal violation as far as I know.

PC 38.02 does not supplement or change it. Failure to ID is a completely different offense. This is one of the most misunderstood laws in Texas, IMO, even, or especially, by police officers.

The first part of failure to ID means that you refused to provide any identification when you were placed under arrest. If arrested, you MUST identify yourself by giving the officer your name, date of birth, and home address. You do not need to show him any specific ID if you orally give him that information.

The second part says you cannot provide false information if you are a suspect or witness. You do not have to identify at all in those conditions, but you cannot misidentify. This is where a lot of police officers and so-called auditors ask the wrong question. It is not detained (which means you are a suspect) but arrested where you have to identify.

The main difference between 411.205 and 38.02 is that 411.205 requires both the ID and LTC to be presented to the officer on demand. 38.02 only require the information be provided or forbids false information, depending on the circumstance. It does not require the ID to be physically produced.

[JRG]

I was thinking that if stopped by the police and you are carrying your gun, you have to notify the officer by handing him your LTC. If you are not carrying at the time, you wouldn't. I haven't been pulled over in decades so am probably not current in my thinking.

Joe

[Mike S]

I was thinking that if stopped by the police and you are carrying your gun, you have to notify the officer by handing him your LTC. If you are not carrying at the time, you wouldn't. I haven't been pulled over in decades so am probably not current in my thinking.

Joe

Joe,

You're correct. Section 411.205 only requires providing the LTC if the handgun is 'on or about your person'. ((Ie, on you, or in glove box or passenger compartment)).

If no gun present, Section 411.205 doesn't require providing the LTC.

I recommend showing it either way, just to get that part of the conversation over with.

[oohrah]

Remember that a traffic stop will run your DL, and your LTC will also show up whether you have produced or not.

[Mike S]

Remember that a traffic stop will run your DL, and your LTC will also show up whether you have produced or not.

Exactly!
That's what I meant by producing it regardless of having the handgun on or about your person & "Getting that part of the conversation over with" upfront.

[JRG]

Alll good to know. I usually provide both, but it has be 20 years or more since I have been stopped.

Joe

[powerboatr]

i too have been away
but yes if not carrying, as i read it, you dont have to produce the ltc...
however if they run your dl and tag before they walk up. they know already, so in the spirit of not being on side of road longer than needed, i generally as i had dl that i am or am not carrying and and if i am the ltc goes with it.

my last stop... the officer asked as i rolled down the window, if i was carrying as he knew i had a ltc.. i said no as i was again just leaving the reservation in bohman ( va ) it seems my bonham trips get me stopped often and i dont speed or more than 2 or 3 over

[BigGuy]

I seem to remember the state of Texas passing a law a few years ago banning apartment building and hotel owners from preventing people from have guns in their rooms or apartments. Am I correct in this? If so, can somebody point me to the specific law?

[srothstein]

I seem to remember the state of Texas passing a law a few years ago banning apartment building and hotel owners from preventing people from have guns in their rooms or apartments. Am I correct in this? If so, can somebody point me to the specific law?

It is written in to Penal Code sections 30.06 and 30.07 as defenses to prosecution. They have several, each written separately with its own technicalities, for condominium owners, apartment tenants, mobile home park tenants, hotel guests, and similar situations. Remember that the problem with a defense is the property can still ban it and even have you arrested, but you should win in court. Better, IMO, to not give the business my money if they don't like my guns.

[ScottDLS]

I seem to remember the state of Texas passing a law a few years ago banning apartment building and hotel owners from preventing people from have guns in their rooms or apartments. Am I correct in this? If so, can somebody point me to the specific law?

It is written in to Penal Code sections 30.06 and 30.07 as defenses to prosecution. They have several, each written separately with its own technicalities, for condominium owners, apartment tenants, mobile home park tenants, hotel guests, and similar situations. Remember that the problem with a defense is the property can still ban it and even have you arrested, but you should win in court. Better, IMO, to not give the business my money if they don't like my guns.

I suppose a property owner could "ban" anything and "have you arrested" for just about anything even though it isn't illegal. But it seems pretty unlikely that a police officer would do so for a class C no jail $200 ticket misdemeanor, that they didn't even witness, for which there is a very common and well known Defense to prosecution. It's even less likely that a prosecutor would accept the charges, and virtually impossible for you to be convicted.

As I've posted before. A Defense to Prosecution for a statute is simply a matter of "burden of proof" at trial...if something makes it to a trial.

You could say it's semantics, but if a Defense exists in a statute, and someone possesses the defense, then the activity is not illegal. Someone with a valid Defense could never (correctly) be convicted of the offense.

Just because the Defense must be raised at trial, by the defendant, and is not required to be considered before charging, doesn't mean the person violated the statute. You don't "prove yourself innocent" by having a Defense. The prosecution must refute any Defense that you raise beyond a reasonable doubt, in addition to proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you committed all the elements of the offense.

If you had a Defense to Prosecution, you didn't break the law. The Defense is written in the law.