TexasCHLforum.com

Saw a good one this morning...

Apparently there is a subtle change to the law that gives authority to suspend our CHL's, basically taking away our right to carry a firearm during an "declared emergency"...

Poor people...If they'd just stay here for all the straight info...The mis-information machine would not have many to fool...

Liberty wrote:

RiverCity.45 wrote:

texagun wrote:The new law does not remove the requirement to display. It simply removes associated penalties and suspensions for the failure to display.

That's really an important point that some folks seem to be overlooking.

Unless I'm missing something without a penalty there is no enforcement, the law has no teeth and is therefore meaningless.
Sorta like the requirment issue CHLs in 60 days (or is it 90?)

The problem, as I see it, is trying to convince a LEO that there is no longer any penalty for failing to present the CHL. We all know that there are those in the LE community who are not going to be aware of the changes in the law. It could make for some interesting encounters.

stevie_d_64 wrote:Saw a good one this morning...

Apparently there is a subtle change to the law that gives authority to suspend our CHL's, basically taking away our right to carry a firearm during an "declared emergency"...

Poor people...If they'd just stay here for all the straight info...The mis-information machine would not have many to fool...

Y'know, stevie, the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this was "What sort of 'declared emergency' would benefit by disarming law abiding citizens?" and I couldn't think of one.


The second thing was "Katrina."

stevie_d_64 wrote:Saw a good one this morning...

Apparently there is a subtle change to the law that gives authority to suspend our CHL's, basically taking away our right to carry a firearm during an "declared emergency"...

Poor people...If they'd just stay here for all the straight info...The mis-information machine would not have many to fool...

stevie_d, what is your source on this? I'd sure like to read up on it. Is it part of SB2730? I read the ENTIRE bill and it didn't pop out at me, but as big as that bill is, I could have easily overlooked it.

I know that the NRA fought the City of New Orleans and won on this very issue. I would imagine that they would challenge this also. Does it actually exist?

Purplehood wrote:I know that the NRA fought the City of New Orleans and won on this very issue. I would imagine that they would challenge this also. Does it actually exist?

I dunno, but I thought TX had already passed a law that specifically prohibited the confiscation of firearms during an emergency, so this is a LITTLE bit different (the "mere" pre-emption of "bear" instead of "keep & bear").

I'm pretty sure stevie was saying that he saw a rumor being spread somewhere that this was true.

It is not true. There is no such bill that allows CHL suspension during an emergency.
After all, isn't that when you're probably going to actually need it?

Stevie scared me. Thats what I get for a cursory-reading.

RiverCity.45 wrote: I agree. It seems silly to me, too. Nonetheless, we're still required. Maybe the penalty for not showing will be a berating from the LEO.

No, what would probably happen is the semi-accurate "I'll get a warning because I have a CHL" will turn to
"The cop was angry I didn't show my CHL so he gave me a ticket instead of a warning."

SIA

I plan on showing mine, so I don't anticipate having that sort of problem.

Purplehood wrote:I plan on showing mine, so I don't anticipate having that sort of problem.

good move .
same here .

dicion wrote:I'm pretty sure stevie was saying that he saw a rumor being spread somewhere that this was true.

It is not true. There is no such bill that allows CHL suspension during an emergency.
After all, isn't that when you're probably going to actually need it?

Exactly my point.

The first question was aimed at "Why would someone/anyone think this was a good idea, since an emergency is when it obviously is most needed? Did I overlook some type of emergency that a firearm would exacerbate?" (the answer is as you pointed out), and the second thought was more along the lines of "Who benefits by spreading this disinformation?"

When I see alleged legislation or claims about legislation that don't match up to what I know, I tend to think in terms of who would benefit by that misinformation. I know that's probably thinking sideways, but I tend to be a bit suspicious when claims like these are made.

KC5AV wrote:The problem, as I see it, is trying to convince a LEO that there is no longer any penalty for failing to present the CHL. We all know that there are those in the LE community who are not going to be aware of the changes in the law. It could make for some interesting encounters.

Don't bother trying to convince them. If the LEO wants to check box #2 and send in the affidavit to ask DPS to suspend a license to carry a concealed handgun, they're just wasting their own time now.

apostate wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The problem, as I see it, is trying to convince a LEO that there is no longer any penalty for failing to present the CHL. We all know that there are those in the LE community who are not going to be aware of the changes in the law. It could make for some interesting encounters.

Don't bother trying to convince them. If the LEO wants to check box #2 and send in the affidavit to ask DPS to suspend a license to carry a concealed handgun, they're just wasting their own time now.

Exactly. Just a nice 'I understand officer.' Is all you need.
Let him think that he's going to actually suspend it. You can laugh to yourself inside your own mind if you want, but it'll be quicker if you just go with the flow.

They'll learn when they get a notice back from DPS that they no longer do that, and that they wasted their time for not knowing the new laws.

Let their ignorance of the law be their own punishment
(Because, as we're told, Ignorance of the law is no excuse!, right?)

This law is a great example of what "compromise" gets us. What a bunch of Maroons.