TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

switch wrote:A co-worker (and student) was stopped last night. Of course, he gave the LEO his CHL. LEOs (2) were very nice/friendly. Asked if he had his gun and where. Later, LEO said next time, tell us you have a gun when you give us the license. (Not what I taught. :( ) LEO said I was wrong.

What say you?

I say, if he wants to know, he should ask. The LAST thing you want to say to a cop is "I HAVE A GUN!"

In fact, it may BE the last thing you say to a cop.

If I'm giving you my CHL with my DL, if you want to know you'll ask. The only time I've been pulled over in the 6 yrs I've had my CHL, the officer did not ask. Of course he told me that he was going to give me a written warning. He then gave me back my DL and went to his car with my CHL. He came back about 5 min later and said his equipment wasn't working properly and was sorry for the delay.
I assume he thought he had my DL instead of my CHL thus the "equipment failure". He was an older guy, I think he "retired" a week or so later as I never saw him on my commute again.

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Agreed, this may be a difference of opinion, but this is the kind of thing that concerns a lot of us...I would hope that as a LEO, you wouldn't take that position. I'd prefer if you'd require us to follow the law, and be pleasantly surprised if we choose to exceed your expectations, rather than having the default position that you expect it from us as a baseline.

It's been over 20 years since I've worn a badge, and I still have tons of respect for those of you who choose to remain in law enforcement.

But I shouldn't have to worry about the opinion of the LEO who stops me. It should be OK for me if I follow the law. I would hope that a LEO wouldn't expect me to exceed the law's requirements (thereby going on higher alert because we're operating below his expectations - which exceed what the law requires of us).

The law is simple: provide CHL when asked for ID if I'm armed. If I choose to exceed that which is expected of me, then all the better.

Some of these might be good choices to make (in increasing order of submission):

1. Follow the letter of the law and provide the CHL when asked for ID if I'm armed.
2. Provide CHL when not armed, even if the law says I don't have to.
3. Tell them I'm armed, when handing over my CHL.
4. Turning on the dome light, hands on the wheel, with license, CHL, and registration in hand.
5. Turning on the dome light, hands out the window, with license, CHL, and registration in hand.
6. Pull over well in advance of the officer getting to me, get out of the car with license, CHL, and registration in hand before he ever gets the chance to stop the car, fully proned out on the ground with all identification showing in my exposed hand.

Yes, of course I'm taking it overboard here. I'm NOT suggesting that we escalate all the way to the end of this list. But how far is enough?

Personally, I I like to have all info in hand, dome light on, and window down before the officer gets out of the car - out of respect for their own safety concerns. I prefer to exceed your expectations rather than let you wonder how this stop is going to go.

Of course, when possible, I'll exceed them as much as I can (short of self-proning-out before your arrive). One time while driving through NE Texas (long before my CHL days), I saw an oncoming trooper put the brakes as he passed me on while I was driving through the Piney Woods area. I pulled over with my stuff in my hands on the steering wheel before he ever fully made the turn. The trooper asked me why I pulled over before he ever made the u-turn and turned on his lights, and my answer to him (as I was driving in my old pickup truck) was, "Yes, sir, I saw you getting ready to turn, and I figured you might have one of those fast cars, so I didn't think I was going to outrun you today...". All said with a smile, of course, and he instantly relaxed and joined in on the joke, "Yeah, I might have caught you this time...thanks for pulling over so I didn't have to chase you too long". It all ended with a warning...he appreciated my approach.

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Here's another different opinion. We shouldn't have to provide our CHL during a traffic stop.

Someone who didn't pass a background check or CHL class can carry legally in their car thanks to MPA. They don't have to preemptively notify police about their legal handgun, legal books, legal medicine, etc. That doesn't seem to cause any problems, so maybe the legislature will eventually trust us too.

Ameer wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Here's another different opinion. We shouldn't have to provide our CHL during a traffic stop.

Someone who didn't pass a background check or CHL class can carry legally in their car thanks to MPA. They don't have to preemptively notify police about their legal handgun, legal books, legal medicine, etc. That doesn't seem to cause any problems, so maybe the legislature will eventually trust us too.

Funny thing on that. In CA , which gets bad mouthed on here non stop, CCW aka CHL holders DO NOT have to ID themselves when stopped. They are even trusted to carry in a bar (alcohol rules apply) and there are no lame 30.06 signs.......

texanjoker wrote:
Funny thing on that. In CA , which gets bad mouthed on here non stop, CCW aka CHL holders DO NOT have to ID themselves when stopped. They are even trusted to carry in a bar (alcohol rules apply) and there are no lame 30.06 signs.......

Yeah, but since CA is a 'may issue state', unless you are a big political contributor, celebrity, politician, or just get lucky and live in a county where the sheriff is Pro-2A, then you are out of luck in getting a CHL.

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Sorry - been offline for a while and didn't get a chance to respond until today... as far as presenting the DL and CHL as being sufficient in the initial contact.... even Mas Ayoob agrees with me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s[/youtube]

n5wd wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Sorry - been offline for a while and didn't get a chance to respond until today... as far as presenting the DL and CHL as being sufficient in the initial contact.... even Mas Ayoob agrees with me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s[/youtube]

Good video, great advice. This is exactly how I have/would approach a stop. I give both DL and CHL armed or not.

Keith B wrote:

texanjoker wrote:
Funny thing on that. In CA , which gets bad mouthed on here non stop, CCW aka CHL holders DO NOT have to ID themselves when stopped. They are even trusted to carry in a bar (alcohol rules apply) and there are no lame 30.06 signs.......

Yeah, but since CA is a 'may issue state', unless you are a big political contributor, celebrity, politician, or just get lucky and live in a county where the sheriff is Pro-2A, then you are out of luck in getting a CHL.

If you live in the northern / eastern rural counties one can obtain a CCW permit. My dad had one and regardless who may or may not have them, the rules are a lot easier for all to understand. Texas rules are very confusing to most.

n5wd wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Sorry - been offline for a while and didn't get a chance to respond until today... as far as presenting the DL and CHL as being sufficient in the initial contact.... even Mas Ayoob agrees with me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s[/youtube]

Again I'll refer back to above where we will differ on opinion

jmra wrote:

n5wd wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

tbrown wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Simply providing the DL and CHL, and saying I am armed would be all it takes.

Simply providing the DL and CHL should be all it takes.

That is where we will differ on opinion...

Sorry - been offline for a while and didn't get a chance to respond until today... as far as presenting the DL and CHL as being sufficient in the initial contact.... even Mas Ayoob agrees with me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=dT-nePQuT-s[/youtube]

Good video, great advice. This is exactly how I have/would approach a stop. I give both DL and CHL armed or not.

No need to provide a CHL if not armed, and since the general consensus in here seems to be one should only do exactly what the law requires why would you do that? Are you trying to receive courtesy because you are a CHL holder?

texanjoker wrote:No need to provide a CHL if not armed, and since the general consensus in here seems to be one should only do exactly what the law requires why would you do that? Are you trying to receive courtesy because you are a CHL holder?

When a Texas LEO runs the driver's license, he will find out a person has a CHL. It is illegal (without penalty) to not inform a Texas LEO you have a firearm so if you know they are going to run your DL, you may want to head off questions about your CHL prior to them finding out about it on their own.

In my last stop I was not carrying and it wasn't until the officer and I had the conversation and he informed me I was receiving a warning that I said, "you might want to know I have a CHL but I am currently unarmed" as I handed my CHL to him. He said, "thank you for that" and handed it back then went to his car. I got the warning as promised.

I agree with Ameer above, there should not be a requirement. Police can ask for ID from someone without a CHL for no reason and that private person can ignore the request, there is no law requiring someone to ID themselves walking down the sidewalk not committing any crime, identification is only required when one has been arrested (PC Sec. 38.02.) However, the same officer demands ID from a person with no reason and that person is carrying under their CHL, they must produce ID and CHL (GC §411.205.) Seems to me we give up some of our 4th Amendment rights to exercise the 2nd.

I would think handing them the CHL is a prima facae statement that you're armed. They can then initiate any further conversation on that as desired no?

Adult1: May I see your identification, please?
Adult2: [handing DL & CHL to officer] Yes, ma'am. I also have a CHL, but I am not carrying.
Adult1: Thank you.

or

Adult1: May I see your identification, please?
Adult1: [handing DL to officer] Yes, ma'am.
After a minute or two, the officer returns from cruiser, warily.
Adult1, now Parent: Are you carrying a gun?
Adult2, now Child: No.
Parent: You have a CHL, correct?
Child: Yes.
Parent: As a courtesy to the officer, in the future, you should present your CHL with your drivers license.
Child: I don't have to. I'm not carrying.
Parent: You are absolutely correct. That's why they call it courtesy.

dogflight wrote:Adult1: May I see your identification, please?
Adult2: [handing DL & CHL to officer] Yes, ma'am. I also have a CHL, but I am not carrying.
Adult1: Thank you.

or

Adult1: May I see your identification, please?
Adult1: [handing DL to officer] Yes, ma'am.
After a minute or two, the officer returns from cruiser, warily.
Adult1, now Parent: Are you carrying a gun?
Adult2, now Child: No.
Parent: You have a CHL, correct?
Child: Yes.
Parent: As a courtesy to the officer, in the future, you should present your CHL with your drivers license.
Child: I don't have to. I'm not carrying.
Parent: You are absolutely correct. That's why they call it courtesy.

Yup - that is EXACTLY my point when also telling a leo if one is armed...courtesy... but the consensus is that it is not a requirement so why do it? if that is the belief, then this should also mean a CHL holder doesn't tell a leo he has a chl if not armed because it is not a requirement.... see devils advocate makes people think

End of discussion in this thread.