TexasCHLforum.com

To bring this back on topic, I have been canvasing any LEO I have had the opportunity to ask about their preference. Out of 9 officers, 8 said while they know it is no the law, they like, and actually prefer it, if the driver presents their CHL initially whether carrying or not. The 9th officer said it didn't really make him any difference, but it would be more convenient than him having to come back and ask if you are carrying since it shows up on the DL run.

One of the officers was the PIO (Public Information Officer) for a local PD and he said that most of the officers he knows feel that way.

So, while it is not the law, and they know it and will accept that fact, my thought is it may gain you points with the officer to be forthcoming. I just say 'I just want to let you know I am a CHL holder since it will come up when you run my license, but am not carrying at the present time." YMMV depending on what you were doing to get stopped.

Keith B wrote:To bring this back on topic, I have been canvasing any LEO I have had the opportunity to ask about their preference. Out of 9 officers, 8 said while they know it is no the law, they like, and actually prefer it, if the driver presents their CHL initially whether carrying or not. The 9th officer said it didn't really make him any difference, but it would be more convenient than him having to come back and ask if you are carrying since it shows up on the DL run.

One of the officers was the PIO (Public Information Officer) for a local PD and he said that most of the officers he knows feel that way.

So, while it is not the law, and they know it and will accept that fact, my thought is it may gain you points with the officer to be forthcoming. I just say 'I just want to let you know I am a CHL holder since it will come up when you run my license, but am not carrying at the present time." YMMV depending on what you were doing to get stopped.

I guess a better question (to my way of thinking) would be: What difference does this knowledge make?


I mean...do officers go on a heightened state of alert to learn there is gun present (other than their own). If so, then the best thing to do would be to treat everyone as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.

If I do NOT present my CHL (and the officer knows the law) then he/she must draw one of two conclusions:
1. I don't have my weapon with me (so didn't present the license as per the law).
2. I do have my weapon but forgot to show I.D. or have some sinister reason not to.

I would much prefer that LEO's assume that law abiding CHL's simply do not have their weapon with them, then to suspect otherwise (assuming no other suspicious activity).

Frankly, I just don't see how knowing a CHL is armed or not benefits the officer in anyway.

I can see where the officer knowing the person is a CHL holder "might" put them at ease a bit....as most are law abiding/reasonable citizens.

For one thing, unless the officer physically confirms (takes control of/or establishes presence) that a firearm exists then he is just taking the word of the CHL.

As far as disarming the CHL holder, the officer unwittingly places him/herself in a position to be ambushed unless they hold you at gun point, remove you from the vehicle, and disarm you "from the position".

It's ridiculous IMO, that we need to show I.D. or disclose our status (armed/unarmed) for a simple traffic stop. It is not required of those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.

I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Save who a few minutes, and in what way?

flintknapper wrote: I mean...do officers go on a heightened state of alert to learn there is gun present (other than their own). If so, then the best thing to do would be to treat everyone as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.

If I do NOT present my CHL (and the officer knows the law) then he/she must draw one of two conclusions:
1. I don't have my weapon with me (so didn't present the license as per the law).
2. I do have my weapon but forgot to show I.D. or have some sinister reason not to.

I would much prefer that LEO's assume that law abiding CHL's simply do not have their weapon with them, then to suspect otherwise (assuming no other suspicious activity).

Frankly, I just don't see how knowing a CHL is armed or not benefits the officer in anyway.

I can see where the officer knowing the person is a CHL holder "might" put them at ease a bit....as most are law abiding/reasonable citizens.

For one thing, unless the officer physically confirms (takes control of/or establishes presence) that a firearm exists then he is just taking the word of the CHL.

As far as disarming the CHL holder, the officer unwittingly places him/herself in a position to be ambushed unless they hold you at gun point, remove you from the vehicle, and disarm you "from the position".

It's ridiculous IMO, that we need to show I.D. or disclose our status (armed/unarmed) for a simple traffic stop. It is not required of those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.

One officer did say that while he would probably assume you were not carrying, he now has a couple of questions in his mind:

1. Is the individual actually carrying and just accidentally forgot to present his CHL?
2. Is the individual carrying, and trying to hide something?

All of them did state they would come back and state they noticed you had a CHL and ask if you were carrying anyway, so they are going to find out unless you lie (which no good guy is gonna do right?)

I know we should be looked upon as totally law abiding citizens since we have clean records to the our licenses, but I think sometimes the nature of the LEO has to be on the side of suspicion; it has to come with the job. I think it just puts them at ease that you were willing to provide them the info voluntarily and that you are not someone who might be trying to hide something. Right, wrong or indifferent, that seems to be the way it is for the LEO's I have asked.

flintknapper wrote: I guess a better question (to my way of thinking) would be: What difference does this knowledge make?


I mean...do officers go on a heightened state of alert to learn there is gun present (other than their own). If so, then the best thing to do would be to treat everyone as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.

If I do NOT present my CHL (and the officer knows the law) then he/she must draw one of two conclusions:
1. I don't have my weapon with me (so didn't present the license as per the law).
2. I do have my weapon but forgot to show I.D. or have some sinister reason not to.

I would much prefer that LEO's assume that law abiding CHL's simply do not have their weapon with them, then to suspect otherwise (assuming no other suspicious activity).

Frankly, I just don't see how knowing a CHL is armed or not benefits the officer in anyway.

I can see where the officer knowing the person is a CHL holder "might" put them at ease a bit....as most are law abiding/reasonable citizens.

For one thing, unless the officer physically confirms (takes control of/or establishes presence) that a firearm exists then he is just taking the word of the CHL.

As far as disarming the CHL holder, the officer unwittingly places him/herself in a position to be ambushed unless they hold you at gun point, remove you from the vehicle, and disarm you "from the position".

It's ridiculous IMO, that we need to show I.D. or disclose our status (armed/unarmed) for a simple traffic stop. It is not required of those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.

This was almost the identical conversation I had with my State rep about this. It's absurd to have a "duty" to in form when the officer has the data right in front of him when he runs the license.
All it does is lead to an absolutely unnecessary feeling by the officer to disarm you until they run your license and make sure you're "clean".
JL

flintknapper wrote:

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Save who a few minutes, and in what way?

The officer walking back and forth to ask. Maybe not a minutes but whatever. I am always carrying so havent had this issue yet.

rm9792 wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Save who a few minutes, and in what way?

The officer walking back and forth to ask. Maybe not a minutes but whatever. I am always carrying so havent had this issue yet.

Ask what?

Here is my point: The law (the way it is written) simply states that IF you are carrying you MUST present your license when asked for I.D. and if you are NOT then you don't.

The rub comes when LEO don't trust citizens to respond accordingly. If I don't hand the officer my license during a stop THAT MEANS I AM NOT ARMED. No need for a fishing expedition on the officers part. No need for him/her "to make sure". Otherwise....we might as well just do away with the law and require the CHL holder to ALWAYS present. The law is antiquated, unnecessary and in great need of change.

If this is bothersome to LEO, then I suggest they lobby along with the citizenry to have it changed, rather than get all in a bother about it.

Not to mention the fact that citizens carrying a weapon (in their vehicle) under the Motorist Protection Act are not expected/required to divulge any information. So....who does the current law serve? No one! It's basically a pain in the rear for all involved.

Its simple really: If I don't offer my CHL license (which I always do) then it should mean to the officer "I am not carrying", done deal. Unless there is some other reason for the officer to suspect that I am carrying... then he should leave it at that.

If for some reason the officer just feels compelled to "check it out" then any extra time spent walking back and forth is of his own doing. Heck, why stop there? Might as well check me for warrants, ask where I've been, where I am going, where I work, ask for a work number, etc......I mean...theres got to be something I can catch this guy on.

CHL's are rarely a problem for LEO, and there is plenty of other stuff for most officers to be doing other than "double checking" them.

Now, personally....I've never had a problem with an officer knowing I have a CHL or was armed. None (yet) has done more than give a cursory look at it and hand it right back. But there are a few that "get the willies" over the idea that anyone other than them has a gun. That is one reason I think it best that they don't even know.

Just my .02 on it.

The obvious solution is to strip CHL information from the DL returns, to avoid needlessly alarming officers about people who aren't carrying.

And eliminating any duty to notify is just "common sense". Don't we all support "common sense" laws?

rm9792 wrote:I do agree with it probably will save a few minutes if you just hand it over anyway whether carrying or not. But the question is, why aren't you!

Because I am on my way either to or from work, my employer (US govt) does not allow me to carry on site, and I am not willing to risk a felony rap.

KBCraig wrote:The obvious solution is to strip CHL information from the DL returns, to avoid needlessly alarming officers about people who aren't carrying.

And eliminating any duty to notify is just "common sense". Don't we all support "common sense" laws?

Especially now that it's legal to carry in a car without a CHL.

flintknapper wrote:
Here is my point: The law (the way it is written) simply states that IF you are carrying you MUST present your license when asked for I.D. and if you are NOT then you don't.

Good post, thank you, nice and simple. No need to think about what the LEO would want since we don't know what their worldview is on chl so us volunteering something outside of the law could be taken good ...or it could backfire. Why conjecture?

My personal decision is that I've changed my mind now so when I get licensed I don't volunteer the plastic if I'm not carrying. Opinions subject to change!

I guess it's all a matter of attitude, yours and the LEO's. Since I don't know what the LEO is thinking I have to fall back on my attitude. I'm proud that I carry and feel no shame in presenting my CCL along with my DL, even if I'm not carrying...which is rarely.