TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

I would have to vote NO on this.

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

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

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.

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.

I also think this is what would happen. Not this session but 2-3 down the road.

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.

This sounds like a lot of effort and expense for very little benefit. We keep hearing pro gun political capital is limited, so why spend even a tiny bit on this? I think repealing ANY of the restrictions in 46.03 or 46.035 that restrict where/how/what we can carry, no matter how few people that would help, is still a much higher priority than this proposal.

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

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?

cyphur wrote:

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?

I have only a 911 phone which is turned off except during Church... I have a car charger/power cord in case I go in a ditch too, never owned one which was activated or had my name or info on it, don't intend to... just a deactivated phone someone else owned so I can call 911 and the e-911 people can find me at that time.
I can build a computer blindfolded with 1 hand, I'm not sure how a phone works without a wire going to a wall, (kidding, I just don't like broadcasting private stuff over RF radio frequencies easily received by others ) I don't trust them, and won't admit to ever hearing cell phone conversations on radios before they all went digital, I think that would have been illegal if one terminated in a wired landline at that time.

So is the only benefit that you don't have to carry two cards in your wallet?

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.