TexasCHLforum.com

Kevinf2349 wrote:OK...now I am just going to play devil's advocate here but....why even bother with having to show the CHL at all? If running the DL shows the LEO that you are licenced to carry concealed, then even have the need to carry it at all?

Because you are still required to show it by law.

I really think that with the removal of the penalty for forgetting to show it this past session, will allow us to get the removal of requirement to show it next session. Big elephants, one bite at a time.

Kevinf2349 wrote:OK...now I am just going to play devil's advocate here but....why even bother with having to show the CHL at all? If running the DL shows the LEO that you are licenced to carry concealed, then even have the need to carry it at all?

Legitimate Texas law enforcement can already access CHL status with a DL so there's no need to print it on the DL.

It makes more sense to completely eliminate the requirement to display. In addition, the 46.02 exemption should be expanded to people who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun, whether or not the license is in their possession. Just like peace officers and special investigators are exempt, even if they're in street clothes and not carrying their TCLEOSE license.

The physical plastic CHL should only be needed for bypassing the Brady check and carrying in other states.

snorri wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:Legitimate Texas law enforcement can already access CHL status with a DL so there's no need to print it on the DL.

Assuming their communications and computer systems are up. If they're down, they'll just have to take you downtown to verify... Savvy?

chamberc wrote:Assuming their communications and computer systems are up. If they're down, they'll just have to take you downtown to verify... Savvy?

Same as feds and peace officers from other jurisdictions.

chamberc wrote:

snorri wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:Legitimate Texas law enforcement can already access CHL status with a DL so there's no need to print it on the DL.

Assuming their communications and computer systems are up. If they're down, they'll just have to take you downtown to verify... Savvy?

No I did not write that......... Savvy?

chamberc wrote:

Legitimate Texas law enforcement can already access CHL status with a DL so there's no need to print it on the DL.

Assuming their communications and computer systems are up. If they're down, they'll just have to take you downtown to verify... Savvy?

That's a reason someone may want to carry the CHL card but not a reason to require it. Savez vous?

boomerang wrote:

jsimmons wrote:But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

So let's print religion and political party on the DL too.

You don't need a license for political or religious affiliation.

boomerang wrote:And your social security number.

SSN can't be put on it because your SSN can't be used as an identifier.

boomerang wrote:And blood type.

That could actually be useful in an emergency situation. Your blood type is included on dog tags.

boomerang wrote:And any long term diseases, injuries and prescription medicines you take.

That stuff changes too often.

boomerang wrote:And annual income and net worth. And your favorite color underwear.

By now, most people have realized you're overreacting. And you still haven't given a reason. If you're concerned about privacy, one would think you would have a problem with even having a DL since it has your name, likeness, DOB, and address on it.

I'd much rather carry around one card than two. Besides that, the endorsement doesn't have to scream "GUN OWNER".

jsimmons wrote:

boomerang wrote:And blood type.

That could actually be useful in an emergency situation. Your blood type is included on dog tags.

Yes, but too often it is wrong and most recruits don't know their blood type to challenge it.

jimlongley wrote:

jsimmons wrote:But you haven't said *why*. I don't care if my employer knows I have a CHL.

"Security managers"? I've never encountered one - ever - and I've been in the civilian workforce since 1978, including working for big corporations, as well as defense contractors, and have never once been asked by ANY one at any employer whether or not I have a CHL, or even if I own any weapons.

If you're worried about leaving your gun in your car, get a pistol box and mount it to something solid in your car.

I'm not trying to say that a CHL endorsement is the best idea, but nobody has given me a reason as to why they're so concerned about it.

I am firmly convinced that part of the reason I was picked to be laid off was that I revealed to an HR person that I had a CHL. She stated openly, during our meeting, that my holding a CHL made her fearful of me.

Did you mention that CHL holders are generally considered to be the most law-abiding citizens in the state and and she has more to fear from NON-CHL holders?

jsimmons wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I am firmly convinced that part of the reason I was picked to be laid off was that I revealed to an HR person that I had a CHL. She stated openly, during our meeting, that my holding a CHL made her fearful of me.

Did you mention that CHL holders are generally considered to be the most law-abiding citizens in the state and and she has more to fear from NON-CHL holders?

Yes, but that did not have any positive effect and seemed to make her worse, she ranted about how dangeropus guns are and how people should not be allowed to own them and such leftist propoganda.

This all started because I filed a complaint against a security person who kept parking a personal vehicle in a fire lane. Apparantly his logic was that since he was both security and had a handicapped license plate, that meant that he could park illegally wherever he wanted. I spoke to him about it once and then filed a complaint with his supervisor - the next thing you know I am being "interviewed" by HR and asked if I have problems with interpersonal relationships with people of enthnicity. Apparantly I was being a racist or something for complaining about someone parking illegally.

The HR person made one of those inane statements about how I probably did illegal things too, and part of my response was that, as a CHL holder, I was much more conscious and conscientious of maintaining my status than the average person, and that's when she started her rant.

In retrospect I see that I probably should have complained about her, but missed opportunities are just that, missed. When the layoffs came I was one of the first out the door, ahead of people very junior to me.

Among other reasons to keep them separate, the CHL is protected by law from review by anyone not attached to some branch of the legal system. DLs are not. It's a current layer of privacy many are not willing to give up.

jimlongley wrote:

jsimmons wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I am firmly convinced that part of the reason I was picked to be laid off was that I revealed to an HR person that I had a CHL. She stated openly, during our meeting, that my holding a CHL made her fearful of me.

Did you mention that CHL holders are generally considered to be the most law-abiding citizens in the state and and she has more to fear from NON-CHL holders?

Yes, but that did not have any positive effect and seemed to make her worse, she ranted about how dangerous guns are and how people should not be allowed to own them and such leftist propaganda.

This all started because I filed a complaint against a security person who kept parking a personal vehicle in a fire lane. Apparently his logic was that since he was both security and had a handicapped license plate, that meant that he could park illegally wherever he wanted. I spoke to him about it once and then filed a complaint with his supervisor - the next thing you know I am being "interviewed" by HR and asked if I have problems with interpersonal relationships with people of ethnicity. Apparently I was being a racist or something for complaining about someone parking illegally.

The HR person made one of those inane statements about how I probably did illegal things too, and part of my response was that, as a CHL holder, I was much more conscious and conscientious of maintaining my status than the average person, and that's when she started her rant.

In retrospect I see that I probably should have complained about her, but missed opportunities are just that, missed. When the layoffs came I was one of the first out the door, ahead of people very junior to me.

I think I would have said something like this:

"Look, the guy is parking in a fire lane, which affects the safety of this structure and your employees, which includes me and you. I don't care what color he is, what his title is here, or anything of that sort. He's jeopardizing MY safety, and after asking him politely not to do it, he persisted in his behavior, so I filed this complaint. Suggesting that this is racially motivated or that I do illegal things is unreasonable and defamatory."

Judging by her reaction to you being a CHL holder, I'm not sure you wanted to remain an employee there anyway. I've been a lot more fortunate in that regard. However, I think I would have lawyered up seen if there was a possibility of a successful lawsuit for wrongful termination. At the very least, after being terminated, I would have waited for the security guy to park in the fire lane and then call the cops and the fire marshal on him for doing it, and the company for allowing it. And I would also make sure that when the cops got there, I was there with documented proof that it was a recurring problem with both the company and the security guy. Of course, that's assuming you have plenty of free time while you're between jobs. :)

You're right - a missed opportunity is simply that.

jsimmons wrote:I'd much rather carry around one card than two. Besides that, the endorsement doesn't have to scream "GUN OWNER".

Why not tape them together?

One of my old bosses (from New Hampshire from what I recall) had a CHL/CHP endorsement on his DL, at least that's what I remember, it was a few years ago.

Many years ago, I was in Boulder, CO and was buying some beer from a liquor store. The person at the store would not accept my military ID as proof of age. I ended up calling the cops and they informed him that it was a valid form of ID and that he had to accept it. Boulder was always a liberal haven college town, so they were not exactly military-friendly. Basically, it was the store owner's way of discriminating against the military.