TexasCHLforum.com

somedudefromhouston wrote:If one is in ones home or on property under ones direct control , there isn't any reason for a CHL correct? One could open carry, conceal whatever right?

IANAL but I think that's correct. You would not be guilty of UCW (46.02) if you're carrying on your own property without your CHL in your possession.

However, the current law says "If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license." That's a bad rule and that's why I support HB 410.

I guess I worded that reply poorly. I meant that I had no idea with no firearm in or on me in a vehicle I was still obligated to declare my CHL. I didn't know that my DL was flagged to alert an officer of my CHL status. If I had any questions about this before the incident occured, I would surely have ask them on this forum. I am a firm beleiver that STUPIDITY of the law is NO excuse.

wb5kje wrote:I guess I worded that reply poorly. I meant that I had no idea with no firearm in or on me in a vehicle I was still obligated to declare my CHL. I didn't know that my DL was flagged to alert an officer of my CHL status. If I had any questions about this before the incident occured, I would surely have ask them on this forum. I am a firm beleiver that STUPIDITY of the law is NO excuse.

What the DPS officer told you was wrong about [legally] having to declare your CHL if you are not armed. He was right when he told you that it will show up when he runs your DL. That is why some people always show their CHL when asked for ID. Keep hanging around and you can learn a lot of good stuff on the TexasCHLforum.

As a side note, if your CHL is linked to your DL, why should it be required to show both?

WildBill wrote:What the DPS officer told you was wrong about [legally] having to declare your CHL if you are not armed.

That is correct. The officer was wrong.

However, that is what the officer thought was the law. Officers are going to enforce the law as they understand it.

As a side note, if your CHL is linked to your DL, why should it be required to show both?

The simple answer is that is the way the law is written.

Another answer is that police do not always have those systems available. For example, they were down in Galveston after Hurricane Ike for a while.

I personally think that whether you have a CHL or are carrying is a non-issue until you put yourself in a situation where you are placed up against the wall and searched. However, this is a hot-button thing with certain police organizations.

- Jim

I don't think this thread applies to me. Where we live, everybody knows who everbody is - or was.

boomerang wrote:

somedudefromhouston wrote:If one is in ones home or on property under ones direct control , there isn't any reason for a CHL correct? One could open carry, conceal whatever right?

IANAL but I think that's correct. You would not be guilty of UCW (46.02) if you're carrying on your own property without your CHL in your possession.

However, the current law says "If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license." That's a bad rule and that's why I support HB 410.

Again my issue with that is why is anyone on my property demanding that I ID myself? Didn't they have a pretty good idea about who lives where when they entered private property? If not, tough rocks for them. get off my land and go get a warrant .
Thats one reason I lock my gate as soon as I get home.

Oldgringo wrote:I don't think this thread applies to me. Where we live, everybody knows who everbody is - or was.

That's the problem with modern society.

For most of human history, outside of a few big cities, people rarely met strangers. You knew who everyone was, how much you could trust them, what tricks they had up their sleeve, etc.

Very few communities in the U.S. are like that today.

I have always wondered whether there is an upper limit on the number of people that one person can know by name. Certainly a few thousand. Maybe ten thousand. No one could know a million people by name.

Therefore we need state-issued credentials.

This issue comes up in many contexts other than CHL: proving citizenship, flying, voting.

I don't think I should have to identify myself to get on an airplane, but I do.

somedudefromhouston wrote:Again my issue with that is why is anyone on my property demanding that I ID myself? Didn't they have a pretty good idea about who lives where when they entered private property?

Plenty of reasons have been given. I'll give you a few more:

• They got the wrong address (312 Maple Street versus 212 Maple Street).
• They were given bad information by dispatch.
• Someone in your house called 911 for whatever reason.
• Your creepy neighbor called in an anonymous false tip to CrimeStoppers.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Your creepy neighbor called in an anonymous false tip to CrimeStoppers.

Or, to give a recent well known example, a person with an axe to grind calls in to a child abuse hotline and claims that they were living with you and you sexually abused them as a minor. CPS will come knocking with lots of police support pretty quickly apparently.

If you are in your home and not expecting Police to show up why would it be required to ID your self? I know the law says, but does it not also say you can not be intoxicated. So you are in your home having a few drinks, Police show up. So they ask for your ID and you also hand them your CHL. They now decide you may be a little intoxicated. By the law you can now lose your license and be taken to jail according to the law.

So I assume everyone who says give them both that they never drink while in their home either. Just another thought to add to this.

You spend a lot of time in your house getting drunk and carrying guns around? Just askin'.

Seldom drink it was just another view on having to provide license while in your home.

Carrying in your home is not under the authority of your CHL so the carrying concealed while intoxicated would not apply.

Happy New Year and stay away from the amateurs.

Anygunanywhere

WildBill wrote:

wb5kje wrote:As a side note, if your CHL is linked to your DL, why should it be required to show both?

One reason for this would be that your CHL is covered under reciprocity in other states as my Utah CCW is supported under Texas law. Do you think that if I was stopped or detained in Texas and when they would run my Minnesota DL and I'm holding a Utah CCW that it would show "flagged". I don't think so.

Your right this forum is great. I have read or heard that Texas is looking at placeing your CHL endorsement on our DL's. Again, I'm not sure where I heard this, but it would be like my motorcycle endorsement shown on my DL?

It probably would not be a good idea to put a CHL endorsement on a driver license, because they do not run concurrently. A person could let his CHL lapse or get it suspended, and it would still be on the driver license.

- Jim