TexasCHLforum.com

I'm really not quite sure what everyone is so concerned with. At most places that require two forms of ID that I do business at, the person on the other end is professional enough to not flip out. I've used my CHL as state-issued ID at my bank, at a house closing, at security checkpoints(long story), and a few other places.

Do I ever use it as a primary form of ID? No, that is what my Drivers License is for.

However, the more often people see these on a daily basis, in business as usual situations, the better off our cause is.


With that said, I've carried forms of identification in the past where just having them seen in public could have put me in immediate danger, and yes it as overseas. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see any loss of tactical advantage. Most folks want to avoid a scene as much as you do.

RPB wrote:States which use a social Security Number as each person' driver's license number always intrigued me ... should be easier to just have one number assigned to each person and an RFID implant at birth to add to the memory, bank accounts, draft card status, Passport status, Government watch list status,medical history and DNA info, criminal history etc.... should make it easier and less costly to just scan your hand or forehead for the implant

As if they would need any of that. You have a cell phone right?

RoyGBiv wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:I would have to vote NO on this.

Just curious as to your reasoning to "vote" against having the option?

Speaking for myself and not Harry....
Step 1: Allow a choice
Step 2: See which is less cost to implement
Step 3: Remove choice, implement lower cost alternative.

For low cost purposes....

You would not allow folks to update their DL until it expired naturally, unless they paid a fee.
You would not allow people to truly conceal their CHL status if so desired, unless you made the CHL part of an innocuous "code" on the DL, such as UV printing, or part of an endorsement on the back. Most folks only ever need to see the front.

You would also need to write a clause to ensure that folks are not forced to migrate until their DL expires.


All in all a choice sounds cheaper? We have to pay for the ID cards either way when we renew the CHL so what is the point. I just want to thin out my wallet, I already carry enough "essential" items. If I could collapse the CHL and DL to a single ID card, I'm all for it. I personally do not care who knows I am carrying, another reason I fully support a well thought out, carefully implemented open carry law.

RoyGBiv wrote:Today I went to the bank. Had several account-related things to take care of that required a face-to-face. My bank is not 30.06 posted so I carry inside. Of course the first thing the banker wants to see is my DL.

NO WAY would I want my DL to say CHL. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY.
CHL is important enough card that I'm happy to make room for it in my wallet.

Of course YMMV.

Thankfully the way this bill written you would maintain that choice.

2farnorth wrote:

cyphur wrote:

2farnorth wrote:After reading what was posted above by MeMelYup from the bill I REALLY don''t want the cards combined. You know every police force in the nation would be able to interpret the language on the DL in short order. Like I said before I have to go through NY and Ma. occasionally and I don't want them to have an extra "excuse" to do a search. In some cases, even if you are following the federal travelers guidelines for carrying guns they make a "defense against prosecution" setup and you still set in the jailhouse til the judge gets to you. PLEASE keep the cards separate. It works good.

Sounds like tin foil hat syndrome to me. I've never been hassled over any documentation no matter what sate I was in.

Well, except this one time, when CBP saw my visa from Afghanistan in my passport. That was a fun conversation.

You know what. I have lived and traveled in those areas a lot in the last 60 years and know the mentality that exists in their police forces and DAs especially in the city areas. I have experienced it and don't want to go through it again. Because of in-laws I have to still travel those areas. Call it "tin foil hat" if you want. I'll call it seasoned reasoning.

Having lived there, traveled there, etc myself as well......having zero issues.....I'll call it a difference of experience.

I still think you are anticipating a problem that many of us would never experience. So, to oppose something due to the minority's need over the ease of use for the majority does not pass my "seasoned reasoning" test. Just opt out......it is after all written as optional.

2farnorth wrote:After reading what was posted above by MeMelYup from the bill I REALLY don''t want the cards combined. You know every police force in the nation would be able to interpret the language on the DL in short order. Like I said before I have to go through NY and Ma. occasionally and I don't want them to have an extra "excuse" to do a search. In some cases, even if you are following the federal travelers guidelines for carrying guns they make a "defense against prosecution" setup and you still set in the jailhouse til the judge gets to you. PLEASE keep the cards separate. It works good.

Sounds like tin foil hat syndrome to me. I've never been hassled over any documentation no matter what sate I was in.

Well, except this one time, when CBP saw my visa from Afghanistan in my passport. That was a fun conversation.

I am all for a flag on my license to reduce cards in my wallet - as long as it does not say "CHL" in bright red on the front or back. Something that folks in the know, will recognize.