TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, I have some noob questions, please forgive me if it's been posted in the past but I didn't see any threads about it.

My questions relate to the penalty for not displaying your license. I know that the penalty associated with not showing your license was removed, and at first I thought it was enacted to help folks who just forgot their license at home while carrying, but sec. 46.15(b)(6) of the Penal Code says that you are only exempt from 46.02 of the Penal Code under the following circumstance:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

To me that means that I have got to physically have my license on me at all times I'm carrying, except maybe in my car, otherwise I am no longer exempt from 46.02. If that is the case, then:

1. What is the practical benefit of this new provision? If I don't have my license, I wouldn't have to worry about it being suspended because it's going to be revoked, seeing as how I would have violated 46.02 by not having it on me.
2. And if you do have it, why would someone not want to display it? I can't think of a reason besides not having it on you, and if you are in your car you don't need it anyway. I just can't imagine a LEO asking for my license, and me saying "no".

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I sure can't figure out what it is.

Thanks,
-1981

I think the effective change is to do away with the need to have the license on your body. You did catch a conflict caused by the compromise to get the change through. It is one of those changes that will need to get cleaned up next time around, but if it came up, I think you could argue in court that the change was meant to make it read that you are issued a license and are carrying.

A buddy of mine who is a officer in Texas stated that if you push them, they will push back. If he wanted to, that failure to display instead will get you a UCW under Penal Code Section 46.02. If convicted, your CHL will then be taken from you.
The Harris County DA takes UCW charges that should be protected against by the MPA, though, making trouble for us in Harris County. I love how the DAs personal agenda and the law are two different matters, and the one that isn't on the books is the one that is enforced.

So, if one were to lose their CHL they could then carry in their car under the MPA and not have to disclose that fact unless specifically asked if they had any weapons. They just couldn't carry outside of the car in public, basically.

Carrying a firearm in your car? you do not need a CHL and no CHL is produced to the officer, cause you do not have one.
Now if you carry concealed on yourself you need a CHL that is more of needed if you are not in your car or going from or to you car.

You are still required to hand over both DL and CHL when asked for ID when carrying. After September 1 2009, if you hand over only DL and no CHL you are still in the clear. If an LEO saw your piece and demand to produce a CHL better to have one or you may be arrested for UCW, ie.e. CC with no CHL.

I always hand over both DL and CHL when asked for ID. What is wrong with that?

Beiruty wrote:Carrying a firearm in your car? you do not need a CHL and no CHL is produced to the officer, cause you do not have one.
Now if you carry concealed on yourself you need a CHL that is more of needed if you are not in your car or going from or to you car.

You are still required to hand over both DL and CHL when asked for ID when carrying. After September 1 2009, if you hand over only DL and no CHL you are still in the clear. If an LEO saw your piece and demand to produce a CHL better to have one or you may be arrested for UCW, ie.e. CC with no CHL.

I always hand over both DL and CHL when asked for ID. What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all. I didn't mean to sound like I was disputing any of this. And if I'm ever stopped or asked for ID I will willingly hand them both over. I was merely pointing out that if someone were to lose their CHL I think they could still carry under the MPA, just not out of the car in public.

mkosmo wrote:A buddy of mine who is a officer in Texas stated that if you push them, they will push back. If he wanted to, that failure to display instead will get you a UCW under Penal Code Section 46.02. If convicted, your CHL will then be taken from you.
The Harris County DA takes UCW charges that should be protected against by the MPA, though, making trouble for us in Harris County. I love how the DAs personal agenda and the law are two different matters, and the one that isn't on the books is the one that is enforced.

No offense to your buddy, but I will have to see the cases and the accurate supporting facts to believe Pat Lykos is accepting charges against people solely for having a handgun in the car. Pat is strongly pro-Second Amendment and she even started a new division in the Harris County DA's office to look into questionable convictions that came out of the prior administration. I met with her before TSRA endorsed her and I know how she views the Motorist Protection Act.

Perhaps your friend was talking the situation under former Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal who was adamantly against the MPA.

Chas.

mkosmo wrote: The Harris County DA takes UCW charges that should be protected against by the MPA, though, making trouble for us in Harris County. I love how the DAs personal agenda and the law are two different matters, and the one that isn't on the books is the one that is enforced.

I didn't know this. Is there any documented cases of this happening?

I hope this is fixed in 2011 to remove the requirement to display. I know why it was done that way but those hostile to CHL will use this against us any way they can. Which I think was the intended reason some Democrats insisted the requirement to display remain. Again CHL holders have been given a half measure that takes four or more years to get right. All for a requirement that is completely overshadowed by the fact that non-CHL holders neither have to have a license or display it in the car which is where the overwhelming majority of LEO encounters take place. This doesn’t even consider the real threat which is the criminals that don’t get prosecuted because of plea deals anyway in most or at least many cases. This is where I come to appreciate a LEO that refuses to follow directives to hassle people that are obeying the law. Laws exist to stop criminals and not to persecute the majority that is law abiding. Something the little tyrants in our urban areas need to remember.

Thanks for your info Charles.

Oh well, I guess I'll just get my PA Non-Resident and maybe a few others to make sure I've always got a license with a gun. (at least until 2011)

mkosmo wrote:A buddy of mine who is a officer in Texas stated that if you push them, they will push back. If he wanted to, that failure to display instead will get you a UCW under Penal Code Section 46.02. If convicted, your CHL will then be taken from you.
The Harris County DA takes UCW charges that should be protected against by the MPA, though, making trouble for us in Harris County. I love how the DAs personal agenda and the law are two different matters, and the one that isn't on the books is the one that is enforced.

That's amazing to me. I always though Texas was very gun friendly but your buddy makes it sound like that's a myth.