Uninformed CHLer or is he right?

[will381796]

... you're only creating pain for yourself if you try and be evasive for no reason.

So when would be a good reason to be evasive???

"Yes,Officer, I do have a gun with me, but I left it in the trunk when I loaded up the bags of cocaine"

Exactly. haha

[tarkus]

A convicted felon is prohibited from possessing a firearm. He is allowed to lie to police and say he doesn't have a gun because he doesn't have to bear witness against himself.

An untrained, unlicensed person can carry a gun in his car and has no duty to notify a police officer of the gun. The untrained, unlicensed person is also not included in the authority to disarm a CHL.

It makes you wonder why some cops are so worried about the trained and licensed people who passed the FBI background check.

[bryang]

I personally think being honest up front would be the best way to treat any encounter with LEO. As someone has already stated you can not win and argument with the officer that has pulled you over. You may win the court case, however, I do not have the time nor money to try it out. I feel honest is the best policy when dealing with LEO, or anyone as far as that goes, but that is just my opinion.

-geo

[HankB]

A convicted felon is prohibited from possessing a firearm. He is allowed to lie to police and say he doesn't have a gun because he doesn't have to bear witness against himself.

IANAL, but this does not sound correct; certainly the convicted felon can decline to answer the officer's questions, and evidence of illegal possession of a guy may well be thrown out if a court determines a search to be without probable cause, but if he actually lies that can be considered a violaton under § 37.08 (quoted above) and probably other statutes.

I've just completed my 2nd CHL renewal and haven't been stopped by an LEO yet . . . but if I ever am, I WILL display my CHL when asked for ID, and I WILL admit to being armed if asked; that way the worst that I'd expect would be harassment in the form of temporary disarmament and some "attitude" on the part of the officer, not arrest and charges.

[mr.72]

the worst that I'd expect would be harassment in the form of temporary disarmament and some "attitude" on the part of the officer, not arrest and charges.

This is the whole problem.

You probably can expect some harassment in the form of temporary disarmament and also some attitude. It's fair to expect that. We hear and read of numerous reports of just that thing happening. I have yet to hear a story of a CHL holder being disarmed by a LEO when it was warranted or when it actually improved anybody's safety. I would think that unless you are being arrested for some other crime, there really is no reason for you to be disarmed. If you are stopped for a DUI, then you should be disarmed. If you are stopped for speeding, no way. If you get out of the car and begin to argue demonstratively with the officer, then ok, they should disarm you. If you are just minding your own business and waiting to get the stop overwith, then there is no reason on earth to disarm you.

What we should expect is that the LEO knows the law. When you provide your CHL, that is an indication that you are likely armed. So there is no reason for them to ask you, and no reason for you to have to deal with answering. No reason for you to be disarmed, no reason for you to be harassed or put up with the attitude. You provided the ID and CHL which is required by law. End of story. Write the ticket or not, and everyone gets on with their business.

I wish I had the money to fight this in court and then maybe I'd be happy to be the test case for this. Problem is, I never get stopped. I haven't been stopped more than once or twice in the past decade. Maybe I need to buy myself a Porsche and remove the muffler to attract a little more attention.

[Purplehood]

Handing him the CHL is you saying "I have a gun" and would be interpreted as such by the LOE. The LOE will ask where is the gun. You don't necessarily have to tell him where it is, but you're only creating pain for yourself if you try and be evasive for no reason.

No, it is saying that I have a CHL that you saw when you ran my DL. If I am asked where my gun is, I inform the officer (in my waist-holster at 4 o'clock; at home; in my center console).

Reasonable cooperation is my policy.

[will381796]

Handing him the CHL is you saying "I have a gun" and would be interpreted as such by the LOE. The LOE will ask where is the gun. You don't necessarily have to tell him where it is, but you're only creating pain for yourself if you try and be evasive for no reason.

No, it is saying that I have a CHL that you saw when you ran my DL. If I am asked where my gun is, I inform the officer (in my waist-holster at 4 o'clock; at home; in my center console).

Reasonable cooperation is my policy.

You do not have to provide your CHL unless you are carrying. If you are pulled over and asked for ID, but do not have a weapon on or about your person, you just give your DL. If you have a gun on or around your person, then you hand them your DL and CHL. Not sure how confusing that is.

You have your CHL so protection under the Motorist Protection Act doesn't apply. You are held to a higher standard MUST provide your CHL if carrying and asked for ID. I don't think you need to tell them where the weapon is, but if you choose not to disclose its location they then have the prerogative to have you leave the vehicle and then to search you for your weapon and disarm you for the duration of the traffic stop.

[Purplehood]

Handing him the CHL is you saying "I have a gun" and would be interpreted as such by the LOE. The LOE will ask where is the gun. You don't necessarily have to tell him where it is, but you're only creating pain for yourself if you try and be evasive for no reason.

No, it is saying that I have a CHL that you saw when you ran my DL. If I am asked where my gun is, I inform the officer (in my waist-holster at 4 o'clock; at home; in my center console).

Reasonable cooperation is my policy.

You do not have to provide your CHL unless you are carrying. If you are pulled over and asked for ID, but do not have a weapon on or about your person, you just give your DL. If you have a gun on or around your person, then you hand them your DL and CHL. Not sure how confusing that is.

You have your CHL so protection under the Motorist Protection Act doesn't apply. You are held to a higher standard MUST provide your CHL if carrying and asked for ID. I don't think you need to tell them where the weapon is, but if you choose not to disclose its location they then have the prerogative to have you leave the vehicle and then to search you for your weapon and disarm you for the duration of the traffic stop.

You are not getting the gist of my statement. I do this voluntarily, not because of some statute. Cooperation. If you don't want to, don't do it. I am sharing information with others here...

[LarryH]

There have also been reports posted in this forum in which a CHL holder was stopped, but because he wasn't carrying at the time, presented only his DL. When the LEO came back from running the DL, he gave the holder attitude for not showing his CHL also. It didn't matter to the LEO that the holder was not required to present the CHL under those circumstances.

Admittedly, the LEO didn't know the law as well as he thought he did. The near-consensus on those threads was that showing the CHL, although not required by statute, was a good idea, since the DL check will show it anyway and perhaps lead to a question in the LEO's mind.

MHO.