TexasCHLforum.com

...might fit this situation...

...it's often pointed out that the law no longer holds any penalty for failing to display our CHL when asked for ID by a peace officer...it's been hinted at that it doesn't matter if we do or don't...but it could...

...not only could the LEO decide that we're "one of those" and enforce the traffic laws to the nth degree, giving us a ticket where a more respectful, cooperative attitude might have gotten us a warning...but look at this:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.


...IF we fail to display our CHL when asked for ID, then we have violated a " provision of this subchapter"...(411.205)...and the officer would be justified by law in not returning our firearm to us at the scene...causing us quite a bit of inconvenience...

...likely??? depends on the officer's discretion...I know for sure that if I make sure to display my CHL...it won't happen to me...

speedsix wrote:...might fit this situation...

...it's often pointed out that the law no longer holds any penalty for failing to display our CHL when asked for ID by a peace officer...it's been hinted at that it doesn't matter if we do or don't...but it could...

...not only could the LEO decide that we're "one of those" and enforce the traffic laws to the nth degree, giving us a ticket where a more respectful, cooperative attitude might have gotten us a warning...but look at this:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.


...IF we fail to display our CHL when asked for ID, then we have violated a " provision of this subchapter"...(411.205)...and the officer would be justified by law in not returning our firearm to us at the scene...causing us quite a bit of inconvenience...

...likely??? depends on the officer's discretion...I know for sure that if I make sure to display my CHL...it won't happen to me...

I think you have to finish the sentence to justify the officer keeping the weapon:
"...that results in the arrest of the license holder."
Failure to present the CHL is not grounds for an arrest. That being said, I would always provide my CHL with DL.

Peer reviewed double blind studies have shown with a 97% confidence level you're 2.6 times more likely to be disarmed if you show your CHL. That jumps to 19.8 times more likely if you have a license that doesn't show in TCIC.

recaffeination wrote:Peer reviewed double blind studies have shown with a 97% confidence level you're 2.6 times more likely to be disarmed if you show your CHL. That jumps to 19.8 times more likely if you have a license that doesn't show in TCIC.

Link?

jmra wrote:

speedsix wrote:...might fit this situation...

...it's often pointed out that the law no longer holds any penalty for failing to display our CHL when asked for ID by a peace officer...it's been hinted at that it doesn't matter if we do or don't...but it could...

...not only could the LEO decide that we're "one of those" and enforce the traffic laws to the nth degree, giving us a ticket where a more respectful, cooperative attitude might have gotten us a warning...but look at this:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.


...IF we fail to display our CHL when asked for ID, then we have violated a " provision of this subchapter"...(411.205)...and the officer would be justified by law in not returning our firearm to us at the scene...causing us quite a bit of inconvenience...

...likely??? depends on the officer's discretion...I know for sure that if I make sure to display my CHL...it won't happen to me...

I think you have to finish the sentence to justify the officer keeping the weapon:
"...that results in the arrest of the license holder."
Failure to present the CHL is not grounds for an arrest. That being said, I would always provide my CHL with DL.

...read it as written, don't pick and choose, to get what it SAYS, not what you want it to say...

" The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder."



...and if the license holder has not:

... violated any provision of this subchapter

OR

...committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder

...you can violate provisions of the subchapter without being arrested...411.205 is one...

recaffeination wrote:Peer reviewed double blind studies have shown with a 97% confidence level you're 2.6 times more likely to be disarmed if you show your CHL. That jumps to 19.8 times more likely if you have a license that doesn't show in TCIC.

...most who report here don't get disarmed...only a few have...

There is two ways to fight a strong wind... go against it or with it...I choose to go with it

...you get more lift flying against it...if you know what you're doing...

speedsix wrote:...you get more lift flying against it...if you know what you're doing...

Very well said speedsix.

speedsix wrote:

jmra wrote:

speedsix wrote:...might fit this situation...

...it's often pointed out that the law no longer holds any penalty for failing to display our CHL when asked for ID by a peace officer...it's been hinted at that it doesn't matter if we do or don't...but it could...

...not only could the LEO decide that we're "one of those" and enforce the traffic laws to the nth degree, giving us a ticket where a more respectful, cooperative attitude might have gotten us a warning...but look at this:

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.


...IF we fail to display our CHL when asked for ID, then we have violated a " provision of this subchapter"...(411.205)...and the officer would be justified by law in not returning our firearm to us at the scene...causing us quite a bit of inconvenience...

...likely??? depends on the officer's discretion...I know for sure that if I make sure to display my CHL...it won't happen to me...

I think you have to finish the sentence to justify the officer keeping the weapon:
"...that results in the arrest of the license holder."
Failure to present the CHL is not grounds for an arrest. That being said, I would always provide my CHL with DL.

...read it as written, don't pick and choose, to get what it SAYS, not what you want it to say...

" The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder."



...and if the license holder has not:

... violated any provision of this subchapter

OR

...committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder

...you can violate provisions of the subchapter without being arrested...411.205 is one...

I can't speak to the intent of the law but I can tell you as a teacher that the sentence structure ties everything after the "and" together.
"and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder." This entire portion of the sentence is one thought. In other words this portion of the sentence ties two actions to one result. If the intent was not so, then this portion of the sentence is written incorrectly (which would not be surprising).
I will say that this entire code, as is the case with most government code, is very poorly written leaving the original meaning/intent open to much debate.
On edit;
In order for the "violated any provision of this subchapter" to stand alone and not be tied to "that results in the arrest of the license holder", the following changes would have to be made to the entire sentence;
1. The word "or" before the word "another" would have to be removed.
2. The words "and if" after the word "individual" would have to be removed.
3. A "," placed after the word "individual".
These changes would separate the action of violating the provisions of the subchapter from the result of being arrested.

..."or" is a simple little word that separates two DIFFERENT things
...if the license holder hasn't done THIS.........OR..........(hasn't done)THAT...

(in the example...he did a "this"...)


...the "and" connects additional things that qualify when the officer shall return the handgun... as in "...AND hasn't done this OR that..."

...if it was as you're "reading" it...they could have simply said "...and if the license holder has not committed any violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."


...as to the 1 2 3 changes you say would HAVE TO be made etc. etc....making those "changes" would make it read:

"...if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, another individual a the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

...gibberish...I don't think I'll be letting you write my homework anytime soon, teacher...

speedsix wrote:..."or" is a simple little word that separates two DIFFERENT things
...if the license holder hasn't done THIS.........OR..........(hasn't done)THAT...

(in the example...he did a "this"...)


...the "and" connects additional things that qualify when the officer shall return the handgun... as in "...AND hasn't done this OR that..."

...if it was as you're "reading" it...they could have simply said "...and if the license holder has not committed any violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."


...as to the 1 2 3 changes you say would HAVE TO be made etc. etc....making those "changes" would make it read:

"...if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, another individual a the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

...gibberish...I don't think I'll be letting you write my homework anytime soon, teacher...

Six,
Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote, but the changes I suggested (or what I intended) would actually make it read like this:

The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder,
another individual, the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter, or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

Still worded poorly. It would have been better written like this:

"The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if:
a) the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual
b) the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter
c) the license holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

I am not trying to insult you in any way. I appreciate your experience as a public servant and if you are confident in your interpretation of the code then I yield to your experience.

By the way, "I don't think I'll be letting you write my homework anytime soon, teacher" is written incorrectly. It should read like this, "I don't think I'll let you write my homework anytime soon, Teacher." (just kidding, peace brother).

If someone doesn't use correct punctuation, capitalization, grammar, etc. in their own writing, I'm skeptical of their qualifications to interpret punctuation and sentence structure in general, and for technical or legal writing in particular.

barstoolguru wrote:There is two ways to fight a strong wind... go against it or with it...I choose to go with it

Going with it is not fighting it. Sheeple go with the wind. Fighting it head on, though, can be tough. Tacking into the wind is usually more effective.

jmra wrote:

speedsix wrote:..."or" is a simple little word that separates two DIFFERENT things
...if the license holder hasn't done THIS.........OR..........(hasn't done)THAT...

(in the example...he did a "this"...)


...the "and" connects additional things that qualify when the officer shall return the handgun... as in "...AND hasn't done this OR that..."

...if it was as you're "reading" it...they could have simply said "...and if the license holder has not committed any violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."


...as to the 1 2 3 changes you say would HAVE TO be made etc. etc....making those "changes" would make it read:

"...if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, another individual a the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

...gibberish...I don't think I'll be letting you write my homework anytime soon, teacher...

Six,
Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote, but the changes I suggested (or what I intended) would actually make it read like this:

The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder,
another individual, the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter, or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

Still worded poorly. It would have been better written like this:

"The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if:
a) the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual
b) the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter
c) the license holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder."

I am not trying to insult you in any way. I appreciate your experience as a public servant and if you are confident in your interpretation of the code then I yield to your experience.

By the way, "I don't think I'll be letting you write my homework anytime soon, teacher" is written incorrectly. It should read like this, "I don't think I'll let you write my homework anytime soon, Teacher." (just kidding, peace brother).

...I just followed your carefully written instructions to the T...but I understand how it happened, you were wrought when you writ...I didn't interpret the code...just read it...I actually graduated high school...but I like to leave those who like to correct plenty to work with...I'd rather teach...