Encounter with Texas DPS

[majormadmax]

I still don't understand why so many people feel compelled to volunteer the info to the cop, that they're carrying a firearm. When I got pulled over by a state trooper for no front license plate (he wrote me a warning), he ran my TXDL and came back and asked me if I'm currently carrying. I said I was, so he asked if I have my actual CHL plastic on me. I said I did, and asked if he would like me to disarm. He said, "That's not necessary. As long as it stays wherever it is, we won't have any problems." He was a nice guy and wasn't at all annoyed that I did not notify him that I was carrying.

Common courtesy, if you were the law enforcement officer wouldn't you like to know?

An armed, law-abiding shouldn't be a threat to a LEO and communicating that you have a legal weapon on you or in the vehicle shouldn't cause any problems.

I have only had one instance where I was asked for ID since I got my CHL several years ago, I showed the officer my CHL and informed him I was unarmed (I cannot have a firearm where I work). While he may have been a jerk about it (he rudely asked why I was showing him my CHL when I wasn't carrying), I still contend it is better to let a LEO know than to have him ask.

So while there may not be any legal ramifications for not telling the officer (which I believe is thanks to the Motorist Protection Act), I will still contend that it is a good idea and as stated, reduces the stress of the situation by being forthright and cooperative. Most times that can work to your advantage.

Cheers! M2

 

[majormadmax]

So a non-CHL holder does not need to inform, but a CHL holder does?

The legal requirement still exists, it's just that there is no penalty for failing to do so.

 

[txinvestigator]

If I'm allowed to conceal carry without a CHL in this situation, why should I provide my CAL?

Because fhe law reads that if you are carrying and a Peace Officer demands you ID yourself, you must display. It is not dependant on the authority under which you carry.
!

If a cop comes to my home, am I required to provide my CHL when I answer the door?

Nobut if he demands you ID yourself then you must.

 

[txinvestigator]

If I am not operating a motor vehicle, I do not need to have a TXDL and as such shall not be compelled to provide one.

Correct. However, if a peace officer demands you ID yourself then you must display your CHL along with your DL or TX ID card.

So a non-CHL holder does not need to inform, but a CHL holder does?

 

[alexrex20]

You're only required to produce ID if you're being lawfully detained.

 

[Driller]

I believe failure to carry some sort of identification is an arrestable offense if asked and you do not have any. If you have some sort of ID and you do not offer it when asked you can be arrested...comments?

 

[txinvestigator]

You're only required to produce ID if you're being lawfully detained.

If you have a CHL please read up on the laws. If not, please read up on the laws.

You NEVER have to produce ID as a result of being detained unless you are a CHL holder and a Peace Officer Demands you Identify yourself, or you are engaged in another licensed activity, such as driving a motor vehicle, hunting, etc.

If you are a CHL holder and you are carrying you must have BOTH your CHL and either DL or ID card with you, because you must display to a Peace Officer when he demands you ID yourself, without regard for being detained.

in Summary, if a person is engaged in a licensed activity like operating a motor vehicle, carrying a handgun under a CHL, etc., he must present his license to a peace officer upon demand of ID. Additionally, a CHL holder must also display a DL or ID card. Other than that, there is no requirement to have ID in your possession or display such, detained or not.

This is from the Government Code. Notice it is a REQUIREMENT

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. 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.

And from the Penal Code regarding identification in general;

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

No requirement to provide any ID. If you are arrested. you must give the listed info. If you are detained or are a witness, you can refuse to ID, but if you lie it is an offense,

 

[txinvestigator]

I believe failure to carry some sort of identification is an arrestable offense if asked and you do not have any. If you have some sort of ID and you do not offer it when asked you can be arrested...comments?

See my above post for clarification

 

[Texan2]

TXI, they will never stop trying to prove you wrong. But please keep responding....it provides pages of entertainment.

 

[Skip]

Common courtesy, if you were the law enforcement officer wouldn't you like to know?

An armed, law-abiding shouldn't be a threat to a LEO and communicating that you have a legal weapon on you or in the vehicle shouldn't cause any problems.

I have only had one instance where I was asked for ID since I got my CHL several years ago, I showed the officer my CHL and informed him I was unarmed (I cannot have a firearm where I work). While he may have been a jerk about it (he rudely asked why I was showing him my CHL when I wasn't carrying), I still contend it is better to let a LEO know than to have him ask.

So while there may not be any legal ramifications for not telling the officer (which I believe is thanks to the Motorist Protection Act), I will still contend that it is a good idea and as stated, reduces the stress of the situation by being forthright and cooperative. Most times that can work to your advantage.

Cheers! M2

+1

 

[Charger]

I've been stopped three times since getting my CHL. Once for speeding, once for not having a front plate, and once for going straight when I was in a "right turn only" lane. Every time I politely informed the officer that I have a chl and actually have a gun on my person. Each time they've asked where and once I told them just said something to the effect of "ok, as long as it stays there we're fine." All three times I only got a warning and actually had very friendly officers. The speeding guy ended up chatting with me about the benefits of Chargers Vs Mustangs for pursuit cars. The license plate girl ended up helping me find a liquor store (I was out by San Antonio on a hunting trip), and the last guy told me a nice story about how they'd recently changed that lane and people regularly mess up.

 

[Bithabus]

If you have a CHL please read up on the laws. If not, please read up on the laws.

You NEVER have to produce ID as a result of being detained unless you are a CHL holder and a Peace Officer Demands you Identify yourself, or you are engaged in another licensed activity, such as driving a motor vehicle, hunting, etc.

If you are a CHL holder and you are carrying you must have BOTH your CHL and either DL or ID card with you, because you must display to a Peace Officer when he demands you ID yourself, without regard for being detained.

in Summary, if a person is engaged in a licensed activity like operating a motor vehicle, carrying a handgun under a CHL, etc., he must present his license to a peace officer upon demand of ID. Additionally, a CHL holder must also display a DL or ID card. Other than that, there is no requirement to have ID in your possession or display such, detained or not.

This is from the Government Code. Notice it is a REQUIREMENT



And from the Penal Code regarding identification in general;



No requirement to provide any ID. If you are arrested. you must give the listed info. If you are detained or are a witness, you can refuse to ID, but if you lie it is an offense,

"Demands ID" means lawfully demands. It does not mean anytime a cop asks to see your ID.

And you know very well CHL holders are no longer forced to show the CHL. All penalties were removed years ago. Then, it wasn't even a law (unless on second violation). A requirement is something we have to do because to fail to do so entails some penalty. No penalty= no requirement. There are words still in the GC, but they mean nothing.

 

[txinvestigator]

"Demands ID" means lawfully demands. It does not mean anytime a cop asks to see your ID.

Yes, it does mean that. The law does not say anything about "lawful". Unless you decide to hold court on the side of the road you must display when a magistrate or peace officer demands that you idendify yourself.

And you know very well CHL holders are no longer forced to show the CHL. All penalties were removed years ago. Then, it wasn't even a law (unless on second violation). A requirement is something we have to do because to fail to do so entails some penalty. No penalty= no requirement. There are words still in the GC, but they mean nothing.

Read the damn law. The word "Requirement" is still there. And yes, it was/is a law. There are mutliple laws contained in multiple codes. Because a law is not in the penal code does not mean it is negated as a law.

And if you read the thread we have covered the fact that the penalty was removed and what the potential consequences are of non-compliance. '

But thanks for playing.

 

[Sugar Land]

Why would you not want to show your CHL to a LEO? Dosen't that let him know that you are one of the good guys? (uneducated thought)

 

[Bithabus]

Yes, it does mean that. The law does not say anything about "lawful". Unless you decide to hold court on the side of the road you must display when a magistrate or peace officer demands that you idendify yourself.

It says "demands" and it means what it says. It does not say "asks for". There is an important difference.

Read the damn law. The word "Requirement" is still there. And yes, it was is a law. There are mutliple laws contained in multiple codes. Because a law is not in the penal code does not mean it is negated as a law.

And if you read the thread we have covered the fact that the penalty was removed and what the potential consequences are of non-compliance. '

But thanks for playing.

Who cares what words are there? It is no longer a requirement because there is no possible penalty. And it was not a law, it was an administrative rule. Laws carry criminal or civil penalties when people break them: this did not.

So:

Are there still words in the GC left over from a now defunct rule that say CHL holders are required to ID?

Yes

Are CHL holders required to ID?

Not since the change in 2009.

 

[Bithabus]

Why would you not want to show your CHL to a LEO? Dosen't that let him know that you are one of the good guys? (uneducated thought)

That's a separate issue.

I show the Officer my CHL when I get pulled over, even though I am not required to.

 

[J. Fred]

Why would you not want to show your CHL to a LEO? Dosen't that let him know that you are one of the good guys? (uneducated thought)

+1
I have had 2 encounters with the DPS (none of any other flavor) since getting my CHL. The thought of not handing over my CHL with my DL never occurred to me. I mean...why not do it ?? Am I missing something here ??

Both times I got a warning.

 

[txinvestigator]

That's a separate issue.

I show the Officer my CHL when I get pulled over, even though I am not required to.

PLEASE stop writing that. You know it is untrue. I have no idea what thing you have about saying it is not required.

for the sake of Pete;

Texas Government Code
Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. 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.

 

[majormadmax]

I show the Officer my CHL when I get pulled over, even though I am not required to.

Just because the penalty for not doing so has been removed, the law does still exists! (as TXI posted while I was typing! Thanks TXI! )

But the point is exactly as Sugar Land stated, there is no logical reason why anyone would not want to show a LEO their CHL.

Honestly, the anti-police sentiment in this forum gets old quick. They are sworn public servants who are trying to keep civil order in our society. They are also human beings like the rest of us, which means there are a few bad apples in the bunch. But for the most part they have a job and deal with situations and individuals that the vast majority of us would avoid. I've ridden along with a few of them, and even with that brief glance into their daily lives I know for a fact that I would be greatly challenged in dealing with such matters on a regular basis.

But the other thing I learned is that the vast majority of them want the same things the rest of us do, a safe, friendly community for all to thrive in (themselves included).

So maybe extending a little respect to them is the smarter tactic to take. Even with the rude response I got from one SAPD officer after showing him my CHL (because I was unarmed at the time), I will continue to do so regardless of what the law says because 1) I would be grateful for knowing such information if I were in his/her shoes and 2) it is an indication that for the most part, I am a respectable, law-abiding member of society. Sure, I may have committed a minor offense such as a traffic violation, and for that I will accept the consequences; but for the most part possessing a CHL is an indication that the individual is less of a threat than your average citizen.

And yes, I will also continue to provide it if asked for identification while unarmed for the same exact reason.

Cheers! M2

 

[Bithabus]

PLEASE stop writing that. You know it is untrue. I have no idea what thing you have about saying it is not required.

for the sake of Pete;

"By the power of the internet, it is hereby required that txinvestigator send Bithabus all his money".

Sorry man but you have to send me your money now. It is required. See above.



But, of course, you are not really required and it is for the same reason CHL disclosure is no longer required. Words on a page mean nothing.