Look it up!sjfcontrol wrote:Statute?AEA wrote:Nobody going to post that if your DL is expired then technically your CHL is invalid?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Look it up!sjfcontrol wrote:Statute?AEA wrote:Nobody going to post that if your DL is expired then technically your CHL is invalid?
Nice!tamc9395 wrote:he commented that most people have a CHL - without missing a beat I used mine and we all had a chuckle.
You're the one making the claim -- YOU back it up!AEA wrote:Look it up!sjfcontrol wrote:Statute?AEA wrote:Nobody going to post that if your DL is expired then technically your CHL is invalid?
Seems to me if you're driving, you will be asked for a driver's license. Then you show both license and CHL. If you're not driving and are asked for ID -- ANY state-issued picture id should do, and the CHL is a state-issued picture ID. On the other hand, I don't believe you are REQUIRED to produce any ID for an officer if you're not driving. I suppose there may be other situations, perhaps not involving police, where you need to produce ID for official purposes -- CHL should suffice there, too.jester wrote:I looked it up but I didn't see that in law.
I did see the requirement to show ID along with the CHL, in certain circumstances, but it doesn't specify a Texas DL. I think someone could show a Texas ID instead of a DL if they don't drive. I think someone with a Texas non-resident CHL probably doesn't have a Texas DL, but that doesn't make their CHL null and void.
I looked at 46.15 and it requires us to carry our CHL to get the nonapplicability but doesn't require any other ID, much less an unexpired Texas DL. Maybe I'm wrong. Show me the law if you want to change my mind.
You have this almost correct. If you are not driving and not carrying a weapon under the authority of your CHL, when are asked for ID by a police officer, you do not have to produce any specific document and can produce nothing as long as you correctly answer certain questions (and in many cases you can just refuse).sjfcontrol wrote:If you're not driving and are asked for ID -- ANY state-issued picture id should do, and the CHL is a state-issued picture ID. On the other hand, I don't believe you are REQUIRED to produce any ID for an officer if you're not driving. I suppose there may be other situations, perhaps not involving police, where you need to produce ID for official purposes -- CHL should suffice there, too.
LOL. He had rookie written all over him but he got the count right..45mac.40 wrote:![]()
Young, nervous, new employee ? ... trying to do a good job ?![]()
Did ya' count your money ?? Just sayin' ?!!![]()
![]()
Mac.45 > > > > > >>>>>>> @ %%% @
Thanks, Steve -- Since the CHL IS an ID all by itself, is there any logic to requiring the second ID?srothstein wrote:You have this almost correct. If you are not driving and not carrying a weapon under the authority of your CHL, when are asked for ID by a police officer, you do not have to produce any specific document and can produce nothing as long as you correctly answer certain questions (and in many cases you can just refuse).sjfcontrol wrote:If you're not driving and are asked for ID -- ANY state-issued picture id should do, and the CHL is a state-issued picture ID. On the other hand, I don't believe you are REQUIRED to produce any ID for an officer if you're not driving. I suppose there may be other situations, perhaps not involving police, where you need to produce ID for official purposes -- CHL should suffice there, too.
BUT, and this is very important, if you are ever carrying under the authority of your CHL and are asked for ID, you must produce your CHL and either a DL or a state ID card. government Code Section 411.205 is still in effect and limits the possible documents produced to those three. The penalty for not having the CHL has been removed (debatably) but the law is still in effect for the other forms of ID.
As a former college professor, long-time industrial trainer and NRA Training Counselor, I completely agree.Matthew2000tx wrote:I'm a teacher and we call that a teachable moment!
this is the mistake many people make in their logic. The only ID the State recognizes as state issued ID is the DL or ID card from DPS. They don't recognize my TCLEOSE license, my state employee ID, or any other state issued papers as identification under the law. I do not truly understand their logic, except as a carry over of tradition, since many of the ID's (like the CHL) are harder to obtain and have better paperwork backing them up than either the DL or ID. I say this is tradition because if you go back as little as 50 years, it would be impossible to verify anything other than those two forms of ID on a regular basis. Of course, if you go back just over 100 years, you don't find the concept of ID in Texas, generally.sjfcontrol wrote:Thanks, Steve -- Since the CHL IS an ID all by itself, is there any logic to requiring the second ID?
This is a little trickier. Since you must show a valid DL or ID with your CHL, it presumes that the CHL would be invalid if you did not have one of them to show. If you get an ID and a DL, with staggered expiration dates, you would cover this possibility. And since DPS offers grace periods on DL renewals, it makes it even less clear.And as previously declared, does an expired DL invalidate the CHL?
I have on good authority (from a coworker with a non-res CHL) that DPS no longer requires non-residents to get a Texas ID card before they apply for a Texas CHL, so it's entirely possible for someone with a Texas CHL to have no (other?) identification issued by the State of Texas. However, the Texas CHL is presumably valid.srothstein wrote:To make it even more confusing, if you read the Government Code sections on eligibility, there is nothing mentioned about your driver's license or ID. But the Administrative Code (DPS rules) says you must submit a valid DL or ID number when you apply.