private university police - show them chl?

[paxton25]

Exactly, why do people keep trying to tell me what I have to do when I don't have to do it and it doesn't effect them? Give that horse a rest.

[nightmare69]

ahhhhh, look, a shiny penny.

[Saffron]

ahhhhh, look, a shiny penny.

[ Image ]

for my thoughts?

[gljjt]

Exactly, why do people keep trying to tell me what I have to do when I don't have to do it and it doesn't effect them? Give that horse a rest.

Uh, for the record, where did anyone tell you what you have to do? Lots of questions, what ifs in tbis thread but I didn't see where anyone told you what you should do.

[paxton25]

Exactly, why do people keep trying to tell me what I have to do when I don't have to do it and it doesn't effect them? Give that horse a rest.

Uh, for the record, where did anyone tell you what you have to do? Lots of questions, what ifs in tbis thread but I didn't see where anyone told you what you should do.

Oh, my mistake, when several people said repeatedly "you must" I took it that they were telling me what I had to do. For the record here you go.

If you are carrying under the authority of yoru CHL, you must legally present your permit, no matter what state it's from, to a law enforcement officer when asked for ID in Texas.

you legally 'must' present your license or you are breaking the law

I just want you and others to know what doing this may get you.

if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

IF you have a CHL and are asked for ID, and you are carrying under your CHL or under MPA, you must present your CHL. It doesn't matter under which authority you are carrying, if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

But to obey the law you must disclose. I think it is in your best interest to do so.

If this ever occurs get ready to eat the pavement.

This is a felony. Jail time if convicted.

[paxton25]

IMO here is the bottom line, not much if anything else needs to be said. There is a law on the books that says you need to present your CHL to a peace officer if he asks for ID. If you choose not to present your CHL there is no legal penalty for not presenting but in the very unlikely event the officer were to discover you did not disclose he probably won't look to favorably on you at the least or might actually be openly hostile to you depending on what his inclination is. My personal decision, for my own reasons is that I don't believe I will bring it up. I do not recommend anyone else does this unless they are so inclined and are willing to accept the risks. How's that? Everyone happy?

[gljjt]

Exactly, why do people keep trying to tell me what I have to do when I don't have to do it and it doesn't effect them? Give that horse a rest.

Uh, for the record, where did anyone tell you what you have to do? Lots of questions, what ifs in tbis thread but I didn't see where anyone told you what you should do.

Oh, my mistake, when several people said repeatedly "you must" I took it that they were telling me what I had to do. For the record here you go.

If you are carrying under the authority of yoru CHL, you must legally present your permit, no matter what state it's from, to a law enforcement officer when asked for ID in Texas.

you legally 'must' present your license or you are breaking the law

I just want you and others to know what doing this may get you.

if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

IF you have a CHL and are asked for ID, and you are carrying under your CHL or under MPA, you must present your CHL. It doesn't matter under which authority you are carrying, if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

But to obey the law you must disclose. I think it is in your best interest to do so.

If this ever occurs get ready to eat the pavement.

This is a felony. Jail time if convicted.

'Must' in each of these is in the context of the legal sense directed to the collective 'you'. They were not directed at you personally. Context is everything.

[gljjt]

IMO here is the bottom line, not much if anything else needs to be said. There is a law on the books that says you need to present your CHL to a peace officer if he asks for ID. If you choose not to present your CHL there is no legal penalty for not presenting but in the very unlikely event the officer were to discover you did not disclose he probably won't look to favorably on you at the least or might actually be openly hostile to you depending on what his inclination is. My personal decision, for my own reasons is that I don't believe I will bring it up. I do not recommend anyone else does this unless they are so inclined and are willing to accept the risks. How's that? Everyone happy?

Your call for you. I don't really care. However, I never once told "you" what to do. In the context of the law, everything I stated was fact. There were some opinions thrown in but not once a directive at you as to what you must do.

I do agree, the horse is dead, several times over. Like the horse, I'm done!!


Edited for spelling error

[paxton25]

Exactly, why do people keep trying to tell me what I have to do when I don't have to do it and it doesn't effect them? Give that horse a rest.

Uh, for the record, where did anyone tell you what you have to do? Lots of questions, what ifs in tbis thread but I didn't see where anyone told you what you should do.

Oh, my mistake, when several people said repeatedly "you must" I took it that they were telling me what I had to do. For the record here you go.

If you are carrying under the authority of yoru CHL, you must legally present your permit, no matter what state it's from, to a law enforcement officer when asked for ID in Texas.

you legally 'must' present your license or you are breaking the law

I just want you and others to know what doing this may get you.

if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

IF you have a CHL and are asked for ID, and you are carrying under your CHL or under MPA, you must present your CHL. It doesn't matter under which authority you are carrying, if you have a CHL and a concealed handgun, you must present the CHL.

But to obey the law you must disclose. I think it is in your best interest to do so.

If this ever occurs get ready to eat the pavement.

This is a felony. Jail time if convicted.

'Must' in each of these is in the context of the legal sense directed to the collective 'you'. They were not directed at you personally. Context is everything.

Looks like that horse keeps getting back up. It's OK I am at work clock watching right now anyway. Am I not in the collective "you"? Yes, context is everything so why are you ignoring it? The context is clear, when you put it in context of me saying there is no penalty for not presenting my CHL and I choose not to and several people quote me and respond to me saying "you must", (Collective "you" including me or not), it is clearly directed at me in an attempt to tell me what must happen. That wouldn't exist in a vacuum or if I didn't post what I did. It's not that I really care, just don't claim that what clearly exists doesn't.

[gljjt]

We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

Please do. A campus cop should know this.

I'll find out for sure. We went through penal code in a week at the academy. This is why I keep a copy in my patrol bag to reference. I'm sure our lawyers will have to look it up as well before giving a definitive answer.

I appreciate that you keep as copy of the penal code to fact check as needed. I don't expect a LEO could possibly know all the laws on the book, but they can know how to look it up. Thanks!

[anygunanywhere]

Paxton, speaking for I believe most members, we do our best here to understand and comply the law. We pride ourselves with our DPS verified statistics of being law abiding citizens. It is also true that some of us agree with your insistence that the manner in which we carry is an infringement on the 2A but we patiently wait and work the legislative process. We typically do not openly brag about how we will not comply with the law. We avoid confrontation when we are in a position where law enforcement requests us to ID ourselves. The discussions here are full of valuable information. You insist that you will not comply with laws you deem unconstitutional that have not been tested in the courts.

Keep us posted if and when you take your stand and let us know how it works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

[paxton25]

Paxton, speaking for I believe most members, we do our best here to understand and comply the law. We pride ourselves with our DPS verified statistics of being law abiding citizens. It is also true that some of us agree with your insistence that the manner in which we carry is an infringement on the 2A but we patiently wait and work the legislative process. We typically do not openly brag about how we will not comply with the law. We avoid confrontation when we are in a position where law enforcement requests us to ID ourselves. The discussions here are full of valuable information. You insist that you will not comply with laws you deem unconstitutional that have not been tested in the courts.

Keep us posted if and when you take your stand and let us know how it works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

but see that's the thing, some people are talking as if I am making a statement or a protest or drawing a line in the sand. I am not, I am just expressing what I choose to do. I also would refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle if asked, just my personal decision, not to be difficult, not to make a stand but because it is my right and I choose to. I avoid confrontation too, that's why this is easy for me. Not really any confrontation. It's more of an experiment let's say. Luckily I have only had one bad experience on the very few times I have had the occasion to interact with a LEO in an official capacity in my entire life. 99% of the LEOs I talk to are upstanding individuals genuinely concerned about everyone's safety. I am not doing it just to go out and poke my thumb in anyone's eye. I just wanted people that may not have know that there actually wasn't any criminal penalty for it. That's pretty much it. To some degree this has been tested in the courts, I believe the law that says you are to present your CHL when asked to identify goes against the ruling in Brown v. Texas. Look it up, it is pretty eye opening. I used to think that you could just be stopped on the street for no reason and you had to produce ID. It seems ridiculous to me that with no CHL you don't have to ID to a LEO unless you are being arrested but with a CHL you have to produce even if you are just detained. Again, why would I be afforded LESS protections for going through the trouble of getting a CHL?

[anygunanywhere]

Paxton, speaking for I believe most members, we do our best here to understand and comply the law. We pride ourselves with our DPS verified statistics of being law abiding citizens. It is also true that some of us agree with your insistence that the manner in which we carry is an infringement on the 2A but we patiently wait and work the legislative process. We typically do not openly brag about how we will not comply with the law. We avoid confrontation when we are in a position where law enforcement requests us to ID ourselves. The discussions here are full of valuable information. You insist that you will not comply with laws you deem unconstitutional that have not been tested in the courts.

Keep us posted if and when you take your stand and let us know how it works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

but see that's the thing, some people are talking as if I am making a statement or a protest or drawing a line in the sand. I am not, I am just expressing what I choose to do. I also would refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle if asked, just my personal decision, not to be difficult, not to make a stand but because it is my right and I choose to. I avoid confrontation too, that's why this is easy for me. Not really any confrontation. It's more of an experiment let's say. Luckily I have only had one bad experience on the very few times I have had the occasion to interact with a LEO in an official capacity in my entire life. 99% of the LEOs I talk to are upstanding individuals genuinely concerned about everyone's safety. I am not doing it just to go out and poke my thumb in anyone's eye. I just wanted people that may not have know that there actually wasn't any criminal penalty for it. That's pretty much it. To some degree this has been tested in the courts, I believe the law that says you are to present your CHL when asked to identify goes against the ruling in Brown v. Texas. Look it up, it is pretty eye opening. I used to think that you could just be stopped on the street for no reason and you had to produce ID. It seems ridiculous to me that with no CHL you don't have to ID to a LEO unless you are being arrested but with a CHL you have to produce even if you are just detained. Again, why would I be afforded LESS protections for going through the trouble of getting a CHL?

Right. Gotcha.

[Charlies.Contingency]

We are peace officers and have full authority on any property owned, leased, or under our control like traveling to an althelic event. We have full access to TCIC/NCIC as well. As far as I know you cannot carry under CHL because we are an educational institution. I will have to ask our attorney about that.

Please do. A campus cop should know this.

I'll find out for sure. We went through penal code in a week at the academy. This is why I keep a copy in my patrol bag to reference. I'm sure our lawyers will have to look it up as well before giving a definitive answer.

I appreciate that you keep as copy of the penal code to fact check as needed. I don't expect a LEO could possibly know all the laws on the book, but they can know how to look it up. Thanks!

I keep a briefcase with all the most up to date Codes that I can. Labor code, Occupations code, Penal code, etc... I am very friendly, and should I see somebody doing something that can be considered "Illegal," I don't tell that it's illegal because I say so. I like to show people where it says what they're doing is illegal, or how it can be interpreted as illegal. I had to inform a guy the other day that his carrying a CCW in his vehicle on an oilfield lease can be illegal if posted. He never scrolled down past Labor Code sub-chapter G 52.061. I never asked him for his ID, but I assumed he was carrying, and we had "hypothetical talk" about if he was, what it would entitle. He thought he could ignore the companies orders that no firearms were permitted in their vehicles if he followed the law, but there are exemptions. See bellow:

Sec. 52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058 (S.B. 321), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.


Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:

(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or

(2) apply to:

(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties;

(B) a school district;

(C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;

(D) a private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;

(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or

(F) property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials, except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted area:

(i) that contains the physical plant;

(ii) that is not open to the public; and

(iii) the ingress into which is constantly monitored by security personnel.

(b) Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer's business. In this subsection, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Paxton, speaking for I believe most members, we do our best here to understand and comply the law. We pride ourselves with our DPS verified statistics of being law abiding citizens. It is also true that some of us agree with your insistence that the manner in which we carry is an infringement on the 2A but we patiently wait and work the legislative process. We typically do not openly brag about how we will not comply with the law. We avoid confrontation when we are in a position where law enforcement requests us to ID ourselves. The discussions here are full of valuable information. You insist that you will not comply with laws you deem unconstitutional that have not been tested in the courts.

Keep us posted if and when you take your stand and let us know how it works out for you.

Anygunanywhere

but see that's the thing, some people are talking as if I am making a statement or a protest or drawing a line in the sand. I am not, I am just expressing what I choose to do. I also would refuse to consent to a search of my vehicle if asked, just my personal decision, not to be difficult, not to make a stand but because it is my right and I choose to. I avoid confrontation too, that's why this is easy for me. Not really any confrontation. It's more of an experiment let's say. Luckily I have only had one bad experience on the very few times I have had the occasion to interact with a LEO in an official capacity in my entire life. 99% of the LEOs I talk to are upstanding individuals genuinely concerned about everyone's safety. I am not doing it just to go out and poke my thumb in anyone's eye. I just wanted people that may not have know that there actually wasn't any criminal penalty for it. That's pretty much it. To some degree this has been tested in the courts, I believe the law that says you are to present your CHL when asked to identify goes against the ruling in Brown v. Texas. Look it up, it is pretty eye opening. I used to think that you could just be stopped on the street for no reason and you had to produce ID. It seems ridiculous to me that with no CHL you don't have to ID to a LEO unless you are being arrested but with a CHL you have to produce even if you are just detained. Again, why would I be afforded LESS protections for going through the trouble of getting a CHL?

On this board it is general policy to state and follow the applicable laws. Espousing non-legal behavior is generally discouraged, even if there is no penalty.
The only exceptions appear to be speeding, and illegal overconsumption of good queso.