TexasCHLforum.com

So why is it that if you have a license and are carrying you must show your CHL during a traffic stop, and those who do not have CHL and are carrying don't really have to say anything at all? Or do they?

So the main idea is why do we have to show. I don't care either way, and I know the "should we have to show" has been discussed before, so lets focus on the differences in the above sentences.

JJ99SS wrote:So why is it that if you have a license and are carrying you must show your CHL during a traffic stop, and those who do not have CHL and are carrying don't really have to say anything at all? Or do they?

So the main idea is why do we have to show. I don't care either way, and I know the "should we have to show" has been discussed before, so lets focus on the differences in the above sentences.

We have to display our CHLs because that is one of the compromises that was made in order to get the law legalizing CHL passed. It was a sticking issue then, butit wasn't a sticking issue when the current car-carry law was written/debated/passed. Different times, different priorities. <Shrug />

And the obvious solution to the disparity, is to eliminate duty-to-notify for CHLs.

Other states get along just fine without it.

As mentioned, the duty to show the CHL was necessary to get the bill passed in 1995. That requirement has long outlived its usefulness and should be repealed.

Chas.

It really doesn't bother me to show my CHL to the police. It usually puts them at ease because they realize they are dealing with a decent person who should not be a threat to them.
It has actually gotten some people off without a citation.

Does anything ever get repealed? I mean, repealed? Or do they just write a conflicting new law instead?

mr.72 wrote:Does anything ever get repealed? I mean, repealed? Or do they just write a conflicting new law instead?

It depends. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other. Sometimes it's a wording change to an existing law.

Another reason is that the cop probably already knows about your CHL when they run your plate prior to approaching you, vs. if you don't have a CHL, he wouldn't know if you are carrying or not in your vehicle.

Rayden wrote:Another reason is that the cop probably already knows about your CHL when they run your plate prior to approaching you, vs. if you don't have a CHL, he wouldn't know if you are carrying or not in your vehicle.

Your CHL status does not show up on a plate run, just your DL check. Unless they run your name for a cross check after running the plate they will not be aware of the CHL.

I don't see what the fuss is. 9 times out of 10 an officer is going to ask if you have any weapons in the car.

Mr.Scott wrote:I don't see what the fuss is. 9 times out of 10 an officer is going to ask if you have any weapons in the car.

Actually, I don't think I've ever been asked that. Granted I haven't been stopped in the last five or six years, but before age 25, I had plenty of traffic-related interaction with somewhere around a dozen different constabulary agencies.

Mr.Scott wrote:I don't see what the fuss is. 9 times out of 10 an officer is going to ask if you have any weapons in the car.

I have no problem showing my CHL to an officer and I'd probably keep doing it, even if the requirement is repealed. (In spite of what is says on the DPS CHL test, having a CHL will often result in getting a break on a traffic stop. ) I just don't think there is any legitimate reason to retain this as a legal requirement, thereby subjecting a CHL to suspension on the first offense and a Class B Misdemeanor (6 months in jail and/or $2,000 fine) on the second offense. The people most likely to forget to show a CHL are those who are very nervous during a traffic stop; i.e. people who rarely if ever get stopped. So their responsible driving habits can work to their detriment when it comes to showing their CHL. This is exactly what prompted a change in the prior statute that made a first "offense" failure to show a CHL a Class B Misdemeanor. A jerk of a deputy sheriff in west Texas arrested a 70+ year old man because he forgot to show his CHL until the deputy was about 20 feet from the man's car door. (I'm still hot about that one.)

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 wrote: § 411.205. DISPLAYING LICENSE; PENALTY.

• (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. A person who fails or refuses to display
  the license and identification as required by this subsection is
  subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by
  Section 411.187.
  (b) A person commits an offense if the person fails or
  refuses to display the license and identification as required by
  Subsection (a) after previously having had the person's license
  suspended for a violation of that subsection. An offense under this
  subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 9.17(a), eff.
Sept. 1, 1999

what is my responsibility to show ID not in a traffic stop??

Mr.Scott wrote:I don't see what the fuss is. 9 times out of 10 an officer is going to ask if you have any weapons in the car.

I have never had an officer ask me that. I'm more often asked if there is a medical emergency to explain my speeding. 'Course, I haven't been pulled over in over 4 years, so attitudes and the interview may have changed.

lunchbox wrote:what is my responsibility to show ID not in a traffic stop??

You have a duty to identify yourself when arrested. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to provide an ID card; verbally giving your name is generally enough, but if you have a DL on you they'll probably use that. Other than that, I can't think of any other time when being interviewed or detained by an officer when you cannot lawfully refuse to show ID. An officer in the State of Texas does not have the power to demand that you produce identification other than while stopped for a moving violation, and therefore such a demand is unlawful, and refusing it is OK from a legal standpoint.

Now, that's the law. On the spot, there is one rule; do not resist the officer. You don't have to help him out, but you can be charged if you resist even if the officer's command or arrest was unlawful. If you are arrested for failure to identify, it's a false arrest and the officers will face disciplinary actions. However, this should be the first thing you remember when dealing with an officer; if he thinks you're going to jail, he's usually right. If an officer wants to take and examine something carried on your person, from your ID to your CCW to your toe ring, the phrase of the day is "I do not consent to a search or seizure of my person or effects, but if you insist on proceeding I won't resist."