Can CHL Replace Driver License as ID?

[jsimmons]

What I don't understand is why they don't put the CHL endorsement on your Texas DL, kinda like your Class. Some sort of visual indication that you're a CHL holder, like a DPS logo on both sides of the word "Texas", or maybe make the card a light bvlue color instead of the cream color it is today. If they did this, all they would have to do is update their database, and when notified, you could simply run down and get a new DL. That would eliminate some cost and time from the whole process, and as a CHL holder, you would be presenting by default because the endorsement is on your license.

I suspect that 'simply run down and get a new D'L isn't quite what they have in mind, given that you have to sit through a class room course and shooting test for renewal, and lets not forget all the notarized 'stuff'.

I like your idea but I doubt it would ever come to fruition....too much potential for abuse etc.

I think you misunderstood. Instead of having to print the CHL and mail it, just notify the applicant that their license is approved/active (after the unreasonably long delay associated with approving the application, of course), and they can go down to DPS and get a new DL with the CHL endorsement on it. How is there any more room for abuse than the current system?

[Kevinf2349]

Ah I see where you are coming from now...maybe you should write in with that idea. Personally I like it, I like anything that simplifies the process.

[aardwolf]

Walking to my mailbox is more simple and much quicker than driving to the DPS office, waiting in line, etc.

[C-dub]

Ah I see where you are coming from now...maybe you should write in with that idea. Personally I like it, I like anything that simplifies the process.

I don't like it. That means that everyone else that I must show my DL to will know that I have a CHL.

[jsimmons]

Ah I see where you are coming from now...maybe you should write in with that idea. Personally I like it, I like anything that simplifies the process.

I don't like it. That means that everyone else that I must show my DL to will know that I have a CHL.

Well, someone else already gave a semi-good reason this shouldn't be done (because you'd have to get a new DL every 5 years). I don't, however, understand why you have a problem with your DL having a CHL endorsement on it. It doesn't have to say "CHL", it could merely be the addition of a star graphic somewhere on the card, or some other indication. People that aren't also CHL holders (or LEOs) would probably never even notice it if it was subtle enough.

[dicion]

Well, someone else already gave a semi-good reason this shouldn't be done (because you'd have to get a new DL every 5 years). I don't, however, understand why you have a problem with your DL having a CHL endorsement on it. It doesn't have to say "CHL", it could merely be the addition of a star graphic somewhere on the card, or some other indication. People that aren't also CHL holders (or LEOs) would probably never even notice it if it was subtle enough.

Oh, but the Anti's, and the security officers as the parking lots of businesses, employer security managers, etc all would notice, and know exactly what that means.

I also would not be in favor of my employer having a copy of my Driver's license with a CHL endorsement on it. I drive for company business, so they need a copy of my DL.

[jsimmons]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

"Security managers"? I've never encountered one - ever - and I've been in the civilian workforce since 1978, including working for big corporations, as well as defense contractors, and have never once been asked by ANY one at any employer whether or not I have a CHL, or even if I own any weapons.

If you're worried about leaving your gun in your car, get a pistol box and mount it to something solid in your car.

I'm not trying to say that a CHL endorsement is the best idea, but nobody has given me a reason as to why they're so concerned about it.

[jimlongley]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

"Security managers"? I've never encountered one - ever - and I've been in the civilian workforce since 1978, including working for big corporations, as well as defense contractors, and have never once been asked by ANY one at any employer whether or not I have a CHL, or even if I own any weapons.

If you're worried about leaving your gun in your car, get a pistol box and mount it to something solid in your car.

I'm not trying to say that a CHL endorsement is the best idea, but nobody has given me a reason as to why they're so concerned about it.

I am firmly convinced that part of the reason I was picked to be laid off was that I revealed to an HR person that I had a CHL. She stated openly, during our meeting, that my holding a CHL made her fearful of me.

[dicion]

While my local office that I work at is decently pro-2a, we are an international corporation, and guess what, Our Main HR Department, where my DL copy would go to, is in one of them there Blue States.
This same HR Department has been VERY VOCAL about our company having a no weapons policy.

Combine that with Texas being a right-to-work/right-to-fire state, and that should be reason enough.

Just because it will not affect you at all, doesn't mean it will not affect many, many others in a Very large way.

[chamberc]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

For me, the why is, since the DL is used in many circumstances as ID, don't want it to show I have a CHL in those cases.

The only time I would ever identify myself as a CHL is to a LEO, and even then I shouldn't have to if we paid attention to the US Constitution, although I am required by Texas law.

[boomerang]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

So let's print religion and political party on the DL too. And your social security number. And all convictions, including juvenile convictions. And blood type. And any long term diseases, injuries and prescription medicines you take. And every sexual partner you had. And annual income and net worth. And your favorite color underwear.

[USA1]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

So let's print religion and political party on the DL too. And your social security number. And all convictions, including juvenile convictions. And blood type. And any long term diseases, injuries and prescription medicines you take. And every sexual partner you had. And annual income and net worth. And your favorite color underwear.

i'm gonna need a bigger DL

[joe817]

But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

So let's print religion and political party on the DL too. And your social security number. And all convictions, including juvenile convictions. And blood type. And any long term diseases, injuries and prescription medicines you take. And every sexual partner you had. And annual income and net worth. And your favorite color underwear.

Boom, don't you think that's taking it to the extreme? I mean, really now. "And your favorite color underwear." That's a little over the top isn't it?

[ELB]

Well, someone else already gave a semi-good reason this shouldn't be done (because you'd have to get a new DL every 5 years). I don't, however, understand why you have a problem with your DL having a CHL endorsement on it. It doesn't have to say "CHL", it could merely be the addition of a star graphic somewhere on the card, or some other indication. People that aren't also CHL holders (or LEOs) would probably never even notice it if it was subtle enough.

...

'm not trying to say that a CHL endorsement is the best idea, but nobody has given me a reason as to why they're so concerned about it.

1. There is no good reason to identify that someone has a CHL, period. The ONLY reason in law to present the CHL at all is to identify the bearer as a potential armed threat. Felons were never required to do this, non-CHL holders with guns in the car are not required to do this, off-duty LEOs were not required to do this -- but guys and gals with essentially perfect legal records were designated a threat. This was the whole point of having to present it to a peace officer in the first place. We effectively, though not completely, rid our selves of this requirement last legislature, and now you want to go backwards and make it mandatory that not only LEOs, but everyone who sees our DLs now knows we have CHLs?

2. Trying to hide the CHL status on a DL with starts, colors, different format, etc, is trivial and useless. For those in Texas It won't take half a brain to figure this out, and it will make it easier for those who want to make life hard for CHL holders to do so, especially anti-gun employers. If you carry your "disguised" CHL out of state, how are LEOs in other jurisdiction supposed to recognize a little star as a CHL endorsement? They won't, they shouldn't have to, and you will go to jail for unlawful carry until they can sort it out. As sadly pointed out above, it doesn't matter how perfect your life history is, to many employers anyone with a gun is a threat and to be dispensed with. Frankly I applaud those who says "to blazes with policy" and carry their guns to work anyway, but tattooing CHL on their driver's license is going to make it more difficult for those who have to provide DLs as a matter of company policy. (Especially pizza delivery guys!) If they aren't let go, they at least become eligible for car searches, being on a watch list, etc.

3. Joining two state bureaucracies like the CHL system and the DL system at the hip is just asking for trouble. At least the DL system is not running months and months behind, but they will be if you force them to wait on the CHL system. And what will you do for a driver's license in the mean time? If they issue one without the CHL status, you'll have to go back and get it reissued again --- for a fee-- in a few months.

Combining CHL and DL is a bad idea, and there's really no plus to doing so.

[Kevinf2349]

OK...now I am just going to play devil's advocate here but....why even bother with having to show the CHL at all? If running the DL shows the LEO that you are licenced to carry concealed, then even have the need to carry it at all?