TexasCHLforum.com

Rifleman55 wrote:With the motorist protection act all of the above arguments are moot point, weather you have a CHL or not.

You'd think that.. but having a CHL is a greater burden while traveling in a vehicle you own than being without one...

You are in control of the car when you're driving. So anything in the car but not on someone else's person is your responsibility. YMMV, but I'd want to make sure that I know where any and all weapons are when I'm driving. But that normally wouldn't be an issue with me since I carry everywhere I'm legally allowed.

cb1000rider wrote:Clearly the smart thing to do is to provide that CHL when stopped and that's probably what I would choose to do... But I don't always ask my wife where her firearm is. I assume this is a case, where you could end up in a bind?

I'd say - if you're in her car alone, don't assume, check - and if she's with you - ask her? :)

I personally think the advice about, if it's in the glove box, it's "about your person", for both of you, makes the most sense to me.

Rifleman55 wrote:With the motorist protection act all of the above arguments are moot point, weather you have a CHL or not.

That, to me, is an interesting question I wouldn't want to test in real life. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to think that if someone wouldn't need a CHL to be legal, they wouldn't need to have the CHL on them.

On the other, the way 411.205 is written, it doesn't say anything about whether or not you have the handgun on or about your person under the authority of the chapter - it just says if you're a CHL holder and you have a handgun on or about your person, you have to hand the CHL over on a demand for ID. Two conditions that, if met, make the law apply -> a)be a license holder, b) have a handgun on or about your person. That, to me, says that once you have a CHL, you should have it with you if you have a gun in the car. (although you'd still be legal as far as the handgun goes, you'd still be violating 411.205 - unless there's something I'm missing, which is entirely possible)

The law can get weird sometimes. For proof, look up the 40 CFR definition of 'solid waste' and think about what it really applies to (which is, essentially, any waste at all, solid, liquid, or gas - Edit: when I took my HAZWOPR class back in about '97, if I'm remembering right the definition said something like 'any waste that is solid, liquid, or gas' but the last time I looked it up it had been changed to something that meant the same thing but wasn't a direct oxymoron).

We have way too many Laws that get intertwined and completely contradict each other. One "Class of Citizens" follow this Law, another "Class of Citizens" follow that Law. I think we need to do away with ALL "Classes of Citizens" as our Founders intended.

Guess I'm confused. Two CHL's and only one gun? Who gets to keep the gun if one need to leave the other to get Help?

docbrazos wrote:Guess I'm confused. Two CHL's and only one gun? Who gets to keep the gun if one need to leave the other to get Help?

docbrazos wrote:Guess I'm confused. Two CHL's and only one gun? Who gets to keep the gun if one need to leave the other to get Help?

And we don't always carry. Same sort of irresponsibility, right?