TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

RPB wrote:If Texas does like some States do and use your Social Security Number as your Driver's License number,

Wait...what states do this?

I didn't think this was legal? your passport doesn't even have your ssn on it.

That was kind of my point. My understanding is that your SSN is regarded as private data, and may not be used in other forms of identification.

OldCannon wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

RPB wrote:If Texas does like some States do and use your Social Security Number as your Driver's License number,

Wait...what states do this?

I didn't think this was legal? your passport doesn't even have your ssn on it.

That was kind of my point. My understanding is that your SSN is regarded as private data, and may not be used in other forms of identification.

Most of the states in the North East require ssn for DL application. When I lived in Maine before coming back to Tx. they started requiring it on my last renewal. If I remember right there were a couple of other states I've lived in that required the ssn. In fact one of them ( I don't remember if it was Ca., Pa., or Il.) had the ssn the same as the dl number.

As far as the ssn being regarded as private data and not used for identification, that verbage was removed from the ssn cards many years ago. My old one from back in the early 60s still has it but no one else in my immediate family has the verbage on their cards. In fact the IRS now calls it your "taxpayer Identification number". That's why all the credit agencies are allowed to use it.

my first impression is "interim step toward constitutional carry"

I believe the SSN is required by states to validate information against federal databases, not to be used as a license number. Several years back I got a notice that I would have to come in to a branch to renew my (TX) license because of invalid data. When I did I found that they had originally fumble fingered my SSN. They entered it correctly and two weeks later had my DL.

jmorris wrote:I believe the SSN is required by states to validate information against federal databases, not to be used as a license number. Several years back I got a notice that I would have to come in to a branch to renew my (TX) license because of invalid data. When I did I found that they had originally fumble fingered my SSN. They entered it correctly and two weeks later had my DL.

If Obama needs to renew his license he may have the same problem

recaffeination wrote:If the change made CHL renewals included free with DL renewals, it might be worth it. Otherwise it looks like a solution in search of a problem. Unless the "problem" is how Republicans can claim they pass "pro gun" legislation while continuing to block meaningful reform like campus carry.

Stop making everything about campus-carry and blasting Republicans.

Chas.

When one party has an overwhelming majority in the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate, and both the Governor and Lt Governor of Texas belong to that same party, it seems obvious who is responsible for what legislation does and doesn't get passed. However, I will respect your wishes and not name that party on your forum.

recaffeination wrote:When one party has an overwhelming majority in the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate, and both the Governor and Lt Governor of Texas belong to that same party, it seems obvious who is responsible for what legislation does and doesn't get passed. However, I will respect your wishes and not name that party on your forum.

You know what I mean. This thread is about a combined Texas Driver's License and CHL, but you bootstrap it into an opportunity to bring up campus-carry and blast Republicans in the process. Talk about campus-carry all you want, but do it in campus-carry threads.

Chas.

83R1488 AJZ-D


By:  Taylor H.B. No. 158


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the designation on a person's driver's license or commercial driver's license that the person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.  Subchapter F, Chapter 521, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Section 521.127 to read as follows:
Sec. 521.127.  CONCEALED HANDGUN DESIGNATION. The department shall include on each driver's license issued to a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who makes an election under Section 411.1795, Government Code, a designation that shows the person is licensed under that subchapter. The designation must include the person's handgun license number, a statement of the period for which the concealed handgun license is effective, and the category or categories of handguns the person is licensed to carry.
SECTION 2.  Section 522.030, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subsection (d) to read as follows:
(d)  The department shall include on each commercial driver's license issued to a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who makes an election under Section 411.1795, Government Code, a designation that shows the person is licensed under that subchapter. The designation must include the person's handgun license number, a statement of the period for which the concealed handgun license is effective, and the category or categories of handguns the person is licensed to carry.
SECTION 3.  Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.1795 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.1795.  DRIVER'S LICENSE DESIGNATION. (a) The department shall adopt rules allowing an applicant for the issuance, modification, or renewal of a license under this subchapter, in addition to or instead of being issued, modifying, or renewing the license, to elect to include on the person's driver's license a designation indicating that the person is licensed under this subchapter. The rules must include procedures to ensure that a person who makes an election under this section receives and maintains a designation on the person's driver's license only if the person meets the requirements for the issuance or modification and any necessary renewal of the license under this subchapter.
(b)  The department may collect a fee from a person who makes an election under this section in an amount necessary to cover the cost of administering this section.
SECTION 4.  Section 411.205, Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
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 either:
(1)  the license holder's driver's license that includes a concealed handgun designation under Section 521.127 or 522.030, Transportation Code; or
(2)  both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.
SECTION 5.  The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules as required by Sections 521.127 and 522.030(d), Transportation Code, and 411.1795, Government Code, as added by this Act, not later than November 1, 2013.
SECTION 6.  The change in law made by this Act applies only to a license issued or renewed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or Chapter 521 or 522, Transportation Code, on or after January 1, 2014.
SECTION 7.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

I have problems with the portion in color.

What exactly is your issue MeMelYup? I would also have an issue if it weren't for the clause "who makes an election" making it optional.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While I agree that there are downsides to having the CHL information on your DL, the way the bill is worded right now is that it would be an optional addition.

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.