TX Residents with out of state CHL

[hillfighter]

...both the OP and Reserve161 have CHLs...and are carrying under the CHL if stopped...not MPA...as the cited law states...regardless of which quality of cop stops him...according to the law governing those who are "...license holders..."...having a CHL...when you read the law...someone carrying in a car who has a CHL is NOT carrying under MPA...the law is the final answer...

If someone with a CHL is always carrying under the authority of their CHL, then how can a police officer or bank guard with a CHL legally get away with intentionally failing to conceal on duty and in uniform? That would be simple if the CHL didn't automatically trump LEO, MPA, ETC. However, I hear many senior members saying the law says someone with a CHL is always carrying under the CHL, so I'm confused. Can someone please quote the specific laws involved because that's not what I was taught in my class. Thanks a lot.

[speedsix]

...both the OP and Reserve161 have CHLs...and are carrying under the CHL if stopped...not MPA...as the cited law states...regardless of which quality of cop stops him...according to the law governing those who are "...license holders..."...having a CHL...when you read the law...someone carrying in a car who has a CHL is NOT carrying under MPA...the law is the final answer...

If someone with a CHL is always carrying under the authority of their CHL, then how can a police officer or bank guard with a CHL legally get away with intentionally failing to conceal on duty and in uniform? That would be simple if the CHL didn't automatically trump LEO, MPA, ETC. However, I hear many senior members saying the law says someone with a CHL is always carrying under the CHL, so I'm confused. Can someone please quote the specific laws involved because that's not what I was taught in my class. Thanks a lot.

...already did...GC411.205 says" REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) 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."

...can't get any clearer than that...(doesn't address police officers or bank guards, who are clearly covered in other parts of the law...nobody here said that the CHL trumps LEO)...but the law does say that if you hold a CHL...you SHALL display it everytime a LEO asks to see your ID, if you have a handgun on or about your person...which includes within reach inside the passenger area of the car you're in...we get to choose MPA or CHL ONLY until the CHL is issued...then we're under GC411.205 if we have a handgun with us...

...we can be "taught" a lot of stuff...but the law is the truth...and the truth can make us free, but, more importantly, can KEEP us free...

[srothstein]

Speedsix, I disagree with part of what you are saying and will attempt to explain my logic. Correct me if you think I am wrong somewhere or I confuse things further.

The law on carrying a weapon is exclusively contained in Chapter 46 of the Penal Code. 46.02 says that it is illegal to carry a weapon unless you are in your own car (basically - I am simplifying by ignoring the limitations written into the MPA on keeping it concealed and not being in a gang or engaged in another crime). This means that it is legal in general to carry a weapon in your car. 46.15 says that the ban on carrying in 46.02 does not apply in certain cases, such as having a CHL or traveling or being a cop.

So, having a CHL is an exception to a crime, but carrying in your car is not a crime to begin with. So having a CHL is irrelevant to carrying in a car.

Some people confuse the requirement to display that is contained in the Government Code with the authority to carry. Note that this law says you must display if you have a CHL and are carryign, and does not mention what authority you are carrying under - or even if you are violating the law by carrying. So, a cop with a CHL must display it when he is stopped, and a person who has a CHL and is carrying inside his own home must display the CHL if asked for ID.

[speedsix]

...first...the law on carrying a weapon is NOT exclusively contained in Chapter 46 of the Penal Code...you might read the title of Texas GC 411 Subchapter H...that is a whole other section of laws on carrying a weapon WHEN YOU HAVE A CHL...which both of those whose questions I was answering have...

...you are talking about some things totally different from what the OP and Reserve 161 were talking about and asking about...and my answer applies to them...46.02 does not...though some here try to take 46.02 as a way to relieve them from even showing their CHL...which it does not...both were asking about HAVING a CHL and being stopped by an LEO...

...at the time you're issued your CHL, according to GC411.205, anytime an LEO asks for your ID or DLic, you must provide your CHL also, if a handgun is on or near you...including in the car close at hand...so a CHL holder can't say "I'm carrying legally in my car under MPA, and I don't have to show my CHL"...by having a CHL, he takes himself out from under 46.02, as you see in 46.15 (b)(6)...which further makes my point...one can't claim exemption from 46.02 because he has a CHL, without incurring the responsibilities demanded by GC411.205...can't have it both ways..."having a CHL is irrelevant to carrying in a car" is not a true statement if the car is not yours or under your control, your CHL is what MAKES IT LEGAL for you to carry in that car, and, though you are carrying in your car...you still HAVE a CHL ...and are subject to GC411Subchapter H...in this case 411.205...which is what the two questions and my replies were answering...


...you have a CHL...when you have a handgun on or about your person, you must display CHL along with any other demanded ID...whether you're in your car or on the street...or in your home...neither of the above members were questioning that...and to offer them 46.02 to "moot" their questions is wrong...and encourages them to break 411.205...that was what I said...the law couldn't be clearer...


...1)Do you have a CHL?
...2)Do you have a handgun on or about your person(including in your car within reach)?

...if the answer to 1) and 2) are YES,then
...3)You must, when asked for ID by an LEO, display your CHL...you can't claim you're under MPA and say you don't have to...

...which was the whole point of contention...LEOs and security guards and at home just kinda got shovelled on in there...I didn't address them...

...so where do we disagree??? 46.02 or 46.15 have nothing to do with their questions...or my answers to them...

[apostate]

Anyone here that's a TX resident been stopped while carrying, who only had an out of state permit (recognized by TX)? How did the LEO react? Any problems?

No problems in the Hill Country. Might be different inside Austin city limits.

Good point. The LEO's attitude toward CHL in general is likely to be a greater factor than which state issued the CHL.

[The Annoyed Man]

If you've been here more than 30 days and you are now a Texas resident, and you have not updated your Arizona carry license to "non-resident" status, then I believe that your Arizona license is no longer valid and you cannot legally carry a concealed handgun in Texas except under the authority—and limitations—of MPA.

Many of us have Texas CHLs AND some other state's non-resident permit. I have both a resident CHL and a non-resident Utah CFP. And some of us have only a non-resident permit from another state, such as a non-resident Florida license. But in ALL cases, your license from whatever issuing state must reflect your legal residency status here in Texas—as either a resident, or non-resident. In other words, if you are a Texas resident, your out of state license must be a non-resident license.

Cite the statute that supports your assertion, please.

I don't believe that is accurate. Arizona will issue licenses to both residents and non-residents, but there is no provision in their law to create a different class of Concealed Weapons Permit based upon residency. Similarly, the license is valid until revoked, suspended, or expired. There is no provision in their law to revoke a license for failure to update the residential address (R13-9-601. Suspension and Revocation). Finally, unless notified in writing that the AZ licensed was suspended or revoked, it remains valid.

Absent the actual AZ-TX reciprocity agreement specifying limitations to license recognition based upon becoming a Texas resident, I see no legal means to state the OP's license is "no longer valid". The actual AZ-TX reciprocity agreement does not seem to be available online at either state's website.

I could be wrong. I'm just reciting what I remember. But I will say this..... if his AZ license is issued to an Arizona address, and he is a Texas resident with a Texas address, then I seriously doubt that his AZ license will still be recognized by Texas after 30 days any more than his AZ DL would be after he gained Texas residency. And, I just took my renewal class on Saturday from Crossfire. IIRC, she stated that failure to update the address on your CHL within 30 days of changing it is cause for suspension of the CHL for 30 days. If one has had two prior suspensions for failure to change the address on the CHL when it changes, then on the third offence the license may be permanently revoked. The conclusion I draw from this is that Texas is serious about the address on your CHL matching the address of your residence, and it doesn't require any leap of logic to assume that the state would be equally serious about out of state licenses........for Texas residents. Texas may not have authority to suspend or revoke an AZ license for use in AZ, but it most certainly can decide to invalidate that AZ license for use in Texas. After all, AZ may not dictate to Texas how Texas regulates these matters. If you say that AZ makes no distinction between resident and non-resident permits, I have no reason to doubt you. I don't frankly care enough to go research it for myself. But that said, I'd be willing to buy the beer if I'm wrong about Texas not caring about the address on an Arizona carry license not matching the address of residence in Texas. If Texas didn't care, it would fly in the face of existing law for Texas CHL holders.

For the record, I wish that Texas' laws matched those of Arizona. My post above isn't advocacy; it's merely a statement of my understanding of the law as currently written.

I handed a Southlake cop my FL CHL and TX DL a few yeras ago. .... No problem.

I only recently bothered to get my TX CHL because I started traveling to CO more frequently and CO will only recognize an out of state licence if your DL and CHL are issued by the same state. TX does not yet have this restriction.

Does your FL license have a Texas address on it, or a Florida address? That's at the heart of what I posted above. My contention is that the address on your carry license must match the address on your TDL, which would be the address of your Texas residence. Otherwise, if you're not a Texas resident, then all of this is moot. The OP never specified if he was a Texas resident, or if his AZ license had a Texas address or not, as well as other questions. The point I was trying to make in my initial reply to him is that it was difficult to answer his questions with any certainty pending those details.

[apostate]

I handed a Southlake cop my FL CHL and TX DL a few yeras ago. .... No problem.

I only recently bothered to get my TX CHL because I started traveling to CO more frequently and CO will only recognize an out of state licence if your DL and CHL are issued by the same state. TX does not yet have this restriction.

Does your FL license have a Texas address on it, or a Florida address? That's at the heart of what I posted above. My contention is that the address on your carry license must match the address on your TDL, which would be the address of your Texas residence.

The current version of the Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License does not bear the licensee's address.

As another data point, Utah will accept an emailed change of address without printing a new license.

[dev_null]

Let me clarify, if I can:

1. AZ does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state applicants. My AZ permit was applied-for from, and issued to, my TX residence. It is valid for the next few years.

2. I'm not talking about MPA per se. I'm talking about handing the officer my TX DL and an AZ CHP.

(3. My reasons for not yet having a TX CHP are not relevant to the question, other than the fact that they have nothing to do with any criminal record or other legal disbarment for getting one.)

Hope this helps narrow the question...

[The Annoyed Man]

Let me clarify, if I can:

1. AZ does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state applicants. My AZ permit was applied-for from, and issued to, my TX residence. It is valid for the next few years.

2. I'm not talking about MPA per se. I'm talking about handing the officer my TX DL and an AZ CHP.

(3. My reasons for not yet having a TX CHP are not relevant to the question, other than the fact that they have nothing to do with any criminal record or other legal disbarment for getting one.)

Hope this helps narrow the question...

Yes, it does help. Thank you. As a general principle, regardless of which state issued the carry license, and regardless of whether it is a resident or non-resident license, IN TEXAS the laws of Texas CHL apply. Under those laws, you are required to show both TDL and carry license to the officer if you are carrying a weapon or have a handgun in the car (since it is under your control). There is no longer any penalty for failure to do so, but it is bad form in the sense of building/destroying good will. As far as whether or not you should expect additional trouble for an out of state license, I would say generally no, but you never know when you'll run into a cop who thinks that CHL is a bad idea, so be prepared for anything.

[jmra]

Let me clarify, if I can:

1. AZ does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state applicants. My AZ permit was applied-for from, and issued to, my TX residence. It is valid for the next few years.

2. I'm not talking about MPA per se. I'm talking about handing the officer my TX DL and an AZ CHP.

(3. My reasons for not yet having a TX CHP are not relevant to the question, other than the fact that they have nothing to do with any criminal record or other legal disbarment for getting one.)

Hope this helps narrow the question...

The only issue I see would be the officer assuming that something in your past prevented you from getting a TX CHL. May make him a little more aggressive in his ticket writing. But I doubt it.

[dev_null]

Thanks, that helps answer the question.

[bizarrenormality]

More and more I think the out of state CHL is a better choice.

[tomtexan]

More and more I think the out of state CHL is a better choice.

Please elaborate.

[bizarrenormality]

Usually lower cost and less risk of being unnecessarily disarmed by a hoplophobe for starters.

[Jumping Frog]

More and more I think the out of state CHL is a better choice.

There is the pretty strong risk that the next legislative session will address TX residents and out of state CHL's, by requiring a TX resident to have a TX CHL.

Always have a back-up plan.