requirement to produce CHL

[Wiley]

Since the passage of the law to allow non-chl citizens to carry a concealed firearm in their personal vehicle, I have not heard a clarification on requirements regarding declaration of a concealed firearm by a non-CHL holder to a LEO nor have I heard if that law changes requirements for a CHL holder to show if there is a firearm concealed in the vehicle. I scanned the TX State web site on CHL and did not see the requirement to produce the CHL with the DL that I remember being in the law. Doesn't mean it wasn't there, I just did not see it. Since all CHL's are now linked to DL's and dispatchers automatically announce that info on the radio and mobile computers show it almost instantly, has there been a requirement change in this regard in light of the newer allowable carry law in personal vehicles? Can someone enlighten me?

[bizarrenormality]

Texas Government Code 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.

[C-dub]

Since the passage of the law to allow non-chl citizens to carry a concealed firearm in their personal vehicle, I have not heard a clarification on requirements regarding declaration of a concealed firearm by a non-CHL holder to a LEO nor have I heard if that law changes requirements for a CHL holder to show if there is a firearm concealed in the vehicle. I scanned the TX State web site on CHL and did not see the requirement to produce the CHL with the DL that I remember being in the law. Doesn't mean it wasn't there, I just did not see it. Since all CHL's are now linked to DL's and dispatchers automatically announce that info on the radio and mobile computers show it almost instantly, has there been a requirement change in this regard in light of the newer allowable carry law in personal vehicles? Can someone enlighten me?

Welcome to the forum Wiley.

The requirement for someone with a CHL to show their license to a peace officer when ID is requested is still there when carrying, but the penalty was removed. There never has been a requirement for anyone carrying under the authority of the MPA to inform and officer that they have a weapon in the vehicle.

[Wiley]

Thanks for the info. That has also been my understanding since the passage of the new law but I just wanted to be sure I understood it correctly. Seems that the CHL and the MPA are kind of in conflict with each other on this particular issue. If I'm riding in a car with a concealed firearm and get stopped, because of the Chl I get held to a stricter standard than if I didn't have one. At least, as you said, the penalty has been removed. Seems like this is something that needs to be worked on at the legislative level to gain some agreement between the two laws. And thanks for the welcome!

[Mel]

Thanks for the info. That has also been my understanding since the passage of the new law but I just wanted to be sure I understood it correctly. Seems that the CHL and the MPA are kind of in conflict with each other on this particular issue. If I'm riding in a car with a concealed firearm and get stopped, because of the Chl I get held to a stricter standard than if I didn't have one. At least, as you said, the penalty has been removed. Seems like this is something that needs to be worked on at the legislative level to gain some agreement between the two laws. And thanks for the welcome!

You may only carry in a car under MPA if you own or in control of the car. You can't carry while riding with someone else in their car under MPA.

At least that's the way I understand it.

[apostate]

If I'm riding in a car with a concealed firearm and get stopped, because of the Chl I get held to a stricter standard than if I didn't have one.

The only times I was asked for identification as a passenger were at international border crossings.

I agree the requirement to display is silly and pointless but, now that the penalty has been removed, there are much higher priorities. For example, fixing the law that says I can't carry in class tomorrow.

[Wiley]

Mel, as I now understand this, I can't carry under MPA regardless of the situation because I am CHL. My wife can carry in our vehicles under MPA, not being a CHL holder. However, whether I am driving our car and get stopped or if I am a passenger and get asked first, I am under CHL regardless, even if it is her car, and her firearm. At least the penalty doesn't apply anymore :>) As a matter of practice, if I pull out my DL for an LEO, I pull out my CHL even if I don't have a firearm. Saves them asking after the dispatcher has told them I have a CHL. ISTM that a law change that requires producing the chl only when actually carrying a concealed weapon your person would be desirable.

[RPB]

Thanks for the info. That has also been my understanding since the passage of the new law but I just wanted to be sure I understood it correctly. Seems that the CHL and the MPA are kind of in conflict with each other on this particular issue. If I'm riding in a car with a concealed firearm and get stopped, because of the Chl I get held to a stricter standard than if I didn't have one. At least, as you said, the penalty has been removed. Seems like this is something that needs to be worked on at the legislative level to gain some agreement between the two laws. And thanks for the welcome!

How I understand it ...
In the olden days, there was a penalty for failing to produce your CHL when asked for ID. Then the MPA passed, allowing non-chls to car carry. The penalty was removed because it was unfair to punish a CHL for forgetting to produce CHL with ID while a non-CHL wasn't required to do anything extra, Seemed unjust to punish a person who took extra effort and expense to be licensed. So, it's still on the books as a requirement for a CHL to produce it (not all situations are driving, an officer might ask for ID of a pedestrian not in a car; but even so, the penalty was removed because of the MPA, as I understand it) but the penalty was removed for CHLs who do not comply with the requirement to produce the CHL.

Personally, I'd prefer to produce the CHL to an officer when asked for ID, I keep my TDL and CHL together.

[MolonLabe]

ISTM that a law change that requires producing the chl only when actually carrying a concealed weapon your person would be desirable.

Texas Code 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.

[MolonLabe]

This is also question #37 (I copied it directly from the TxDPS website) posted in the CHL FAQs section:

37. Am I required to carry my Concealed Handgun License (CHL) when I don’t have my handgun with me?
No. Under the concealed handgun law, you are only required to have your license with you whenever you are carrying a handgun.

[Skiprr]

Mel, as I now understand this, I can't carry under MPA regardless of the situation because I am CHL.

There are differing opinions. My vote is that statement, at least partially, is incorrect.

Do a lot of searching and reading here. The truth is out there.

[The Annoyed Man]

Mel, as I now understand this, I can't carry under MPA regardless of the situation because I am CHL. My wife can carry in our vehicles under MPA, not being a CHL holder. However, whether I am driving our car and get stopped or if I am a passenger and get asked first, I am under CHL regardless, even if it is her car, and her firearm. At least the penalty doesn't apply anymore :>) As a matter of practice, if I pull out my DL for an LEO, I pull out my CHL even if I don't have a firearm. Saves them asking after the dispatcher has told them I have a CHL. ISTM that a law change that requires producing the chl only when actually carrying a concealed weapon your person would be desirable.

The first of the three highlighted sentences is only true in a sort of badly defined way, and the third sentence is completely true (as long as "her firearm" is in "your possession"), but the second sentence is not true in all circumstances. For instance, it is my understanding that MPA covers a person who is "in control of" the vehicle in question......and "in control of" is not the same thing as "co-owning." By that understanding, if you are driving the car as a CHL, you wife may not carry as a passenger under MPA because she is not the one "in control" of the vehicle, even though her name may be on the title alongside yours (and the bank's ). But reverse the situation, in which she is driving and you're the passenger, then she may carry under MPA and you may carry under CHL.

The first sentence is, I have been assured by others on this forum, only selectively true (I am not sure I agree). I have been assured by some that a 30.06 sign at the entrance to your employer's parking lot supersedes the recently passed "parking lot" bill which prevents employers from disarming their employees when they are not on company time by refusing them permission to secure their weapons in their vehicles on company parking lots. This effectively disarmed someone from lawfully carrying a firearm so long as their employer's parking lot was one of the destinations during their day. The legislature countermanded that by granting that employees who are lawfully carrying a firearm in their car may secure that firearm in their car before entering a building into which company rules bar them from bringing their weapon. Employers reacted to the passage of this bill by posting 30.06 signs at their parking lot entrances to keep CHLs out....which or course has no application to someone carrying under MPA. I have been assured by others on this forum that when a CHL encounters a 30.06 sign at the entrance to his/her employer's parking lot, he or she may abandon the notion that they are carrying in their vehicle under CHL and switch that carry authority to MPA, against which 30.06 has no force of law.

Personally, I think that either viewpoint is begging for trouble, and this is one of those areas where the legislature really needs to clarify what they meant when they passed the parking lot bill. There is a saying around here that you'll run into from time to time: "You may beat the time, but you won't beat the ride," meaning that your attorney may be able—for a small consideration equal to or greater than 5 years of your annual salary—to bail you out of jail and get the case thrown out of court. I'm glad that I'm self employed and my company requires its (two) employees (me and my wife) to be armed at all times, so I don't have to deal with employer attempts to circumvent the rights of citizenship. But as with most things, the personal cost of placing oneself in the situation of being the test case for this particular legal clarification is higher than most are willing to bear.

I'm not telling you NOT to cherry-pick when you think MPA applies to you in lieu of CHL, but just understand that some things are poorly defined and you may get away with it, or you may spend a ton of money as "the test case."

Oh, and welcome to the forum, by the way.

[C-dub]

And keep in mind that whether or not a person with a CHL can choose to be carrying under the MPA when prohibited under the authority of the CHL has been unchallenged and decided by the courts.

I used to think that when the law was clear that going through the court system to prove something was inevitable, but just look back at the recent SCOTUS decision on the Unaffordable Healthcare Act.

[3dfxMM]

By that understanding, if you are driving the car as a CHL, you wife may not carry as a passenger under MPA because she is not the one "in control" of the vehicle, even though her name may be on the title alongside yours (and the bank's ). But reverse the situation, in which she is driving and you're the passenger, then she may carry under MPA and you may carry under CHL.

I will have to disagree with you here. The MPA states "a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control". If she is also an owner of the vehicle she is covered by the MPA whether she is driving or not.

[CrimsonSoul]

I contacted my Rep Bonnen once, I don't remember the reason but it was about a proposed gun rights bill. He told me he would vote for it and used an an example that he voted to repeal the requirement to produce your CHL to a peace officer if ID is demanded while carrying. So my understanding from his response is this: Yes, the bill is not repealed, but Texas "repeals" laws by taking away the penalty for them. So basically if there is no penalty then it isn't against the law. Weird.