CHL?

[jiannichan]

I too would like to see what the judge friend has to say and would like to hear the outcome of this. To the OP, hope all goes well with you.

[getnit1]

I had a DPS officer question me back in about 1999 after a traffic stop and he ran my driver's license. He came back and asked me if I was a CHL holder I stated "yes but I do not have my weapon with me". He responded almost irate "don't you know you are suppose to hand it to me when I stop you". I told him again "I do not have my weapon and I understood that I did not have to give it to you if i was not carrying". He told me that was not the case. He said he would turn it in. I did not say anything else about it and never heard anything else about it.

[theinvisibleheart]

THIS IS SUPER INFORMATIVE AND INTERESTING!

Thanks, guys! Will get the p/u fixed ASAP.

--John

[mr.72]

"don't you know you are suppose to hand it to me when I stop you". I told him again "I do not have my weapon and I understood that I did not have to give it to you if i was not carrying". He told me that was not the case. He said he would turn it in. I did not say anything else about it and never heard anything else about it.

You are absolutely right, he was wrong. However, that was in 1999. The situation may be different today, since the MPA has taken effect allowing the unlicensed carry of a concealed handgun in your car.

I think there's a valid question about the intent of the law requiring you to provide your CHL if you are carrying and a peace officer asks for ID. I think the intent is clearly to provide the CHL if you are carrying in some circumstance or location where your CHL is what authorizes you to carry (i.e., it would be otherwise illegal for you to carry). Basically you are providing proof that you are carrying legally. However such proof is not required if you are legally carrying in whatever places exist that do not require you to have a CHL, such as in your car, your own home, your property or property under your control, etc. There appears to be no other purpose of providing the CHL besides notification that carrying is indeed legal in whatever case, and it should not be a question if you are in your car. You are legal whether you have a CHL or not.

[FlynJay]

Well John, It looks like if the officer submits the affidavit you have just signed up to be the test case, or you've lost your license for 90 days.

According to the law; if you have a handgun on or about your person and you are asked for identification by a peace officer you shall display your chl.
From your statements you did not do this and are subject to to officer's discrection to have your license suspended for 90 days [Reference: GC411.187].

I hope for your sake the officer was bluffing.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There are places in the Codes where CHLs are obligated to do certain things or are prohibited from doing other things only if they are carrying pursuant to the the authority of their CHL. Unfortunately, Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 requires a CHL to show the CHL when asked for ID anytime they have a handgun "on or about the license holder's person." This part of the Code is not limited to when we are carrying under the authority of our CHLs. When combined with the Motorist Protection Act, it establishes a higher duty for CHLs than non-CHLs carrying in a motor vehicle.

Case law holds that a gun in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle is "on or about your person," except under limited circumstances.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.205 should be repealed.

Chas.

Sec.A411.205. 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
202
subject to suspension of the person ’s license as provided by
Section 411.187.
(b)AAA 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, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.17(a), eff.
Sept. 1, 1999.

[theinvisibleheart]

Thanks, this is informative and educational! We'll worth the cost! Thanks! I really enjoyed this.

I've had CHL for about 4 years now(time to renew next year).

--John

[mr.72]

Thanks for the clarification, Charles.

Seems odd to hold CHL holders to a higher standard, but such is the law.

[flintknapper]

"don't you know you are suppose to hand it to me when I stop you". I told him again "I do not have my weapon and I understood that I did not have to give it to you if i was not carrying". He told me that was not the case. He said he would turn it in. I did not say anything else about it and never heard anything else about it.

You are absolutely right, he was wrong. However, that was in 1999. The situation may be different today, since the MPA has taken effect allowing the unlicensed carry of a concealed handgun in your car.

I think there's a valid question about the intent of the law requiring you to provide your CHL if you are carrying and a peace officer asks for ID. I think the intent is clearly to provide the CHL if you are carrying in some circumstance or location where your CHL is what authorizes you to carry (i.e., it would be otherwise illegal for you to carry). Basically you are providing proof that you are carrying legally. However such proof is not required if you are legally carrying in whatever places exist that do not require you to have a CHL, such as in your car, your own home, your property or property under your control, etc. There appears to be no other purpose of providing the CHL besides notification that carrying is indeed legal in whatever case, and it should not be a question if you are in your car. You are legal whether you have a CHL or not.

That is a good summary of my understanding as well.

[mr.72]

That is a good summary of my understanding as well.

Well, it seems that even though my summary makes sense, at least to me, according to Charles it is not actually the correct application of the law. Next time I am out shooting with my friend who is a county judge, I plan to ask his opinion.

[stroo]

The CHL discussion was good but I want to know what this is all about:
"I got cited for DVD player being visible from driver's view(radio/satellite radio/dvd
combined into one),"

Since when is having a DVD player visible from the driver's view illegal?

[mr.72]

Since when is having a DVD player visible from the driver's view illegal?

see here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s ... 81903b.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SB 209

[Rex B]

I would also like to welcome TheInvisibleHeart to this forum.
I have known John for a little more than a year, and consider him a friend and a Good Guy.
He will fit in well with this group.

Rex

[jiannichan]

Isn't that only if you have something displayed on the screen, like a movie playing? What if the only thing being displayed is the GPS map?

[mr.72]

It's in the transportation code § 547.611

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... 547.00.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

§ 547.611. USE OF CERTAIN VIDEO EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISION
RECEIVERS. (a) A motor vehicle may be equipped with video
receiving equipment, including a television, a digital video disc
player, a videocassette player, or similar equipment, only if the
equipment is located so that the video display is not visible from
the operator's seat unless the vehicle's transmission is in park or
the vehicle's parking brake is applied.
(b) A motor vehicle specially designed as a mobile unit used
by a licensed television station may have video receiving equipment
located so that the video display is visible from the operator's
side, but the receiver may be used only when the vehicle is stopped.
(c) This section does not prohibit the use of:
(1) equipment used:
(A) exclusively for receiving digital
information for commercial purposes;
(B) exclusively for a safety or law enforcement
purpose, if each installation is approved by the department;
(C) in a remote television transmission truck;
or
(D) exclusively for monitoring the performance
of equipment installed on a vehicle used for safety purposes in
connection with the operations of a natural gas, water, or electric
utility; or
(2) a monitoring device that:
(A) produces an electronic display; and
(B) is used exclusively in conjunction with a
mobile navigation system installed in the vehicle.

Emphasis is mine.

So it looks like a display that ONLY works with a navigation system is ok to be installed in view of the driver, but regardless of whether it is in use, any screen that is installed in the view of the driver and is connected to a DVD player is in violation of the law.