Interesting question raised.

[ScottDLS]

When I was instructing my daughter on carrying in the vehicle I pointed out that she did not need to say a thing; HOWEVER if she was going for a document or something where her hand might get close to the weapon she needs to inform the LEO and ask how he/she wants to proceed. The car we bought her has a handy little map pocket on the front of the seat so it is not likely going to be an issue.

Does she have a CHL? I ask because I have a daughter that carries concealed but has a Utah non-resident. She could not afford the Texas CHL. I am mixed about what to advise her to do. Under the MVPA she is not required to mention her weapon. I worry about the combination of Utah CCP, MVPA and police officer confusion of the law. With a Texas CHL, I believe it will come up on a license run??? With Utah it won't???

Technically, she is required to produce CHL (one would assume a reciprocal license if that's all she had) if she is carrying a handgun, regardless of whether she is carrying under CHL or not. The GC requires displaying the license if she is carrying. Now there is no penalty for failure to do so, but it is "required".

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

When I was instructing my daughter on carrying in the vehicle I pointed out that she did not need to say a thing; HOWEVER if she was going for a document or something where her hand might get close to the weapon she needs to inform the LEO and ask how he/she wants to proceed. The car we bought her has a handy little map pocket on the front of the seat so it is not likely going to be an issue.

Does she have a CHL? I ask because I have a daughter that carries concealed but has a Utah non-resident. She could not afford the Texas CHL. I am mixed about what to advise her to do. Under the MVPA she is not required to mention her weapon. I worry about the combination of Utah CCP, MVPA and police officer confusion of the law. With a Texas CHL, I believe it will come up on a license run??? With Utah it won't???

Technically, she is required to produce CHL (one would assume a reciprocal license if that's all she had) if she is carrying a handgun, regardless of whether she is carrying under CHL or not. The GC requires displaying the license if she is carrying. Now there is no penalty for failure to do so, but it is "required".

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.

Thanks. Then based on this, I am thinking she would be best served by handing them her license and Utah CCP, just as she would if she had the Texas CHL. I really dislike the way they worded or wrote that law. No penalty, but illegal can sure cause confusion on the streets with police officers.

[djjoshuad]

I was also confused about that law. The reason it's so badly worded now is that the statute refers to another section for description of the penalty. That section *no longer* contains a penalty. When they modified the law, they took out the penalty, but left in the reference. In its former wording, it made perfect sense... now it's kinda silly.

To that point, there is not a good definition of an arrestable offense in TX law (to my knowledge). If you fail to display your CHL, you are in violation of TX law and as such, could be arrested. You could even go before a judge and be convicted (not saying it would actually happen but it's possible given the current law). If convicted, there is no basis for sentencing, but I'm betting that the court could still get you for court costs.

Top this all off with the fact that even some CHL instructors (mine included) are now teaching that you are no longer required to display your CHL. Many people assume that this is the case, even when not taught. That's understandable, as it was most likely the intent of the change in law... but we have to go by what is actually there, not the intent. As the law is currently written, CHL holders are required to display their CHL ANY TIME an officer demands identification AND they have a weapon "on or about their person".

sorry to contribute to the derailment :)

[ScottDLS]

I was also confused about that law. The reason it's so badly worded now is that the statute refers to another section for description of the penalty. That section *no longer* contains a penalty. When they modified the law, they took out the penalty, but left in the reference. In its former wording, it made perfect sense... now it's kinda silly.

To that point, there is not a good definition of an arrestable offense in TX law (to my knowledge). If you fail to display your CHL, you are in violation of TX law and as such, could be arrested. You could even go before a judge and be convicted (not saying it would actually happen but it's possible given the current law). If convicted, there is no basis for sentencing, but I'm betting that the court could still get you for court costs.

Top this all off with the fact that even some CHL instructors (mine included) are now teaching that you are no longer required to display your CHL. Many people assume that this is the case, even when not taught. That's understandable, as it was most likely the intent of the change in law... but we have to go by what is actually there, not the intent. As the law is currently written, CHL holders are required to display their CHL ANY TIME an officer demands identification AND they have a weapon "on or about their person".

sorry to contribute to the derailment :)

No they didn't leave in the penalty reference...the DPS web site just has an incorrect posting. The law current as of the 2009 legislative session as posted on Texas.gov is:

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. 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.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.17(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146, Sec. 12A.02, eff. September 1, 2009.

[tacticool]

I was also confused about that law. The reason it's so badly worded now is that the statute refers to another section for description of the penalty. That section *no longer* contains a penalty. When they modified the law, they took out the penalty, but left in the reference. In its former wording, it made perfect sense... now it's kinda silly.

Now it's like some of the requirements placed on DPS by the CHL law (issue within a specific time limit, etc.) that have no penalty and never had any penalty. Talk about silly!

[ScottDLS]

...
To that point, there is not a good definition of an arrestable offense in TX law (to my knowledge). If you fail to display your CHL, you are in violation of TX law and as such, could be arrested. You could even go before a judge and be convicted (not saying it would actually happen but it's possible given the current law). If convicted, there is no basis for sentencing, but I'm betting that the court could still get you for court costs.
...

Good point, though I believe that "arrestable" would hang on the definition of "offense". There is a strong argument that not following the GC 411.205 requirement is not an "offense" at law, since it isn't a violation of a Penal Law (not even a Class C), and I don't see it being considered a "breach of the peace".

Art 14.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the authority of Peace Officers to arrest. Outside the parameters there it would seem to come dangerously close to Unlawful Restraint.

[kjolly]

I believe in cooperating fully. If stopped I would show officer both even if not carrying a weapon. Its behim think you are trying to hide something.
Seriously believe if you have a CHL this trumps the MPA and you are responsible under your CHL.