Do I have to disclose to LEOs?

[Skiprr]

To be specific:

- If you are carrying, and, if asked for ID by a LEO...Yes.

You aren't obligated but it's also a good idea even if you aren't carrying. If the LEO calls your DL in, he's going to find out you have a CHL. If you haven't already presented your CHL at this point, he's going to wonder why you didn't show it to him.

Actually, that's incorrect:

GC §411.205. 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.

While the 2011 Legislature removed a penalty for failing to display a license, the requirement to display under GC §411.205 remains.

Your mileage may vary.

[tiviti]

To be specific:

- If you are carrying, and, if asked for ID by a LEO...Yes.

You aren't obligated but it's also a good idea even if you aren't carrying. If the LEO calls your DL in, he's going to find out you have a CHL. If you haven't already presented your CHL at this point, he's going to wonder why you didn't show it to him.

Actually, that's incorrect:

GC §411.205. 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.

While the 2011 Legislature removed a penalty for failing to display a license, the requirement to display under GC §411.205 remains.

Your mileage may vary.

I read it as you aren't obligated to display if you aren't carrying. I have been asked by officers to display even if I'm not carrying since it comes up under my license anyway.

[gigag04]

It's not so much an issue of "have to" as should in my mind. I may be a bit biased, but statistically disturbances are the most dangerous calls to LEOs. Be cool about it, but I appreciate knowing where all the weapons are on scene.

[Purplehood]

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide other than our weapon?

I think not.

[seamusTX]

The question is not whether you have something to hide but whether the authorities have a legitimate reason to inquire.

“The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Not exactly a raving anarchist, BTW.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide?

I think not.

The question most likely to be posed when someone is wanting you to give up your fourth amendment protections.

Anygunanywhere

[Jaguar]

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide?

I think not.

The question most likely to be posed when someone is wanting you to give up your fourth amendment protections.

Anygunanywhere

Nothing to hide here, but plenty I'd like to keep private.

Unless asked for ID by a law enforcement officer, not going to disclose.

[The Annoyed Man]

There's a requirement to display your CHL when the peace officer asks for your ID and youre not allowed to lie but theres no requirement to volunteer information about being armed.

This. ^^

AND.....

If the officer does not ask for your ID, there is no obligation to display your CHL to him/her. If he/she does ask for ID and you are armed at the time, you are required to show the CHL, although the penalty for failure to do so has been removed. Beyond that, there is no obligation to inform him/her that you are armed, unless they ask you. Often, but not always, the cop will simply look at your CHL and return it without comment (this is how my last stop went). It is often considered by many (but not all) to be "good form" to offer the CHL along with TDL when asked for ID even if you're not armed, and even though there is no legal requirement to do so if you're not armed.

It's a sort of courtesy "Hey, we're on the same side here" kind of statement.

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide?

I think not.

The question most likely to be posed when someone is wanting you to give up your fourth amendment protections.

Anygunanywhere

Well yeah.....but I don't think of showing my ID to a cop as some kind of huge violation of my 4th Amendment rights.....not because I don't value the 4th Amendment, but because I am willing to show him/her my ID in the same way that I'm willing to give a stranger a glass of cold water, even though I paid for and own the glass and the water. It's mine to give. So long as I get to determine who gets a glass of ice water from me, then my private property rights are being respected. Similarly, when I volunteer my CHL even when I'm not required to show it, I don't have a problem with it.......so long as the decision is mine to make. If CHL law were expanded to require it every time, whether or not I was armed, then I would have a problem with it as an intrusion into my rights.

[gigag04]

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide?

I think not.

The question most likely to be posed when someone is wanting you to give up your fourth amendment protections.

Anygunanywhere

If it's a disturbance and you're involved, you called police there (or yor spouse). Asking for ID has nothing to do with 4th amendment seizures...

[anygunanywhere]

My Question is this:

Do any of us have anything to hide?

I think not.

The question most likely to be posed when someone is wanting you to give up your fourth amendment protections.

Anygunanywhere

If it's a disturbance and you're involved, you called police there (or yor spouse). Asking for ID has nothing to do with 4th amendment seizures...

I am totally on board with the requirements and have done so in the past even when not packing.

Using the "I do not have anything to hide" or "What do you have to hide" reasoning is not necessarily a justification to broadly divulge information.

Anygunanywhere

[rtschl]

I had to call the Police one time at church because we thought someone was hiding inside after we locked up after the evening service (a door was blocked open with a small rock after all the doors were locked). Though not required to, I showed the arriving officers my PPO Security ID. They were cool and said they didn't need to see it. They called for a K9 unit. After they were done searching, the K9 officer asked if I was armed and I said yes. He "read me the riot act" about not notifying him and showing my CHL to him. I explained that I was carrying under the authority of my Security License not my CHL and that I had shown the arriving officers. He went on to say that for his safety he should have been informed by me that I had a CHL and was armed. I was polite and he was too... just telling me I didn't follow the law and that I am required to let him know I have a CHL. He reiterated that it was for his safety. I again said that I was not carrying under the authority of my CHL but even if I was, the statute only requires notification when an officer asks for identification. I was never asked. He again said it was for his safety and that in the future always show my CHL. I just said thank you for coming out and I appreciated his service. I knew I wasn't going to win the argument with him, so I let it go.

Ron

[Katygunnut]

Mr. Allen,

You never know how a particular individual police officer will deal with the situation.

Probably the vast majority understand that a CHL holder has passed background checks, obtained training, etc., and is not going to present a problem.

But every now and then on this forum we hear about an officer disarming a person with a CHL and treating him like a criminal suspect. Of course, in those cases we don't know the cop's side of the story.

- Jim

In this case, I was presumably on the side of the law, assisting in the investigation of a auto theft and residential burglary, and, being an inordinately placid and jovial, mature citizen in good standing, there was no need or cause for the LEO to be nervous. OTOH, like WildBill said in his post, and I indicated, CHL holders are like dinosaurs around here, you hardly ever see one these days. What I did not want is to be climbing around inside the house and have this fellow, who I didn't know either, glimpse an outline etc, and get jumpy on me with unpredictable reactions.

It all worked out OK and I was satisfied I had done it.

This reminds me of a Criminal Minds episode where a main character was in Witness Protection. There is a scene where they are talking to the guy in his house and his "friend" (really his US Marshall contact) is in the room. One of the FBI guys sneaks a peak at the "friend's" fully holstered gun and freaks out, basically pinning the guy down until he explains that he is a US Marshall, etc. My first thought on seeing that was "I sure hope this isn't supposed to be set in Texas".

[Purplehood]

The question is not whether you have something to hide but whether the authorities have a legitimate reason to inquire.

“The right to be left alone—the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Not exactly a raving anarchist, BTW.

- Jim

I agree fully. But that only applies if they are violating your rights in the first place when asking for ID. If they are not, and they ask, why hide?

[seamusTX]

I'm not saying that a CHL holder should lie to a LEO. I think everyone should obey the law and cooperate with the police in an emergency situation or investigation.

I'm only saying that we are not obligated to volunteer information that is not asked or relevant.

There's also the problem of people who think they are law-abiding, who get sucked into something that doesn't go well. Many people with a tangential relationship to a criminal case have been falsely convicted or convicted of some indirect offense like obstruction of justice.

- Jim

[bizarrenormality]

I have heard too many stories about capricious disarming and incompetent gun handling by the gendarmerie.