TexasCHLforum.com

Apparently, this is one of those cops who would prefer you on first contact to say, "I have a gun!"

Mike1951 wrote:The trooper's statements do seem to indicate infamiliarity with the MPA.

However, I share the opinion of some that you don't get to pick MPA or CHL, whichever is more convenient. It is my opinion that when your CHL is issued, MPA goes out the window, even if the firearm is being transported in a manner allowed by MPA. Say you typically carry one in the console, but one day you have left your CHL on the dresser. If you get stopped, don't expect to convince the officer that you were carrying under the MPA, so your license wasn't required.

The OP's situation would best be addressed by more information displayed in response to queries, such as 'Approved-pending receipt', 'Mailed to recipient on 00/00/0000', or something to convey it may not yet be in possession. This would not require legislation, as it is just procedure.

This warrants a discussion with the DPS department head that has corrected other processing issues.

That begs the question then, what if your CHL has been suspended pending the conclusion of a shooting investigation? Are you barred then from having a gun in your vehicle at all, even under the MPA? After all, you temporarily do not have a CHL. Or, what if you renewed, but you haven't received the new plastic yet and your old plastic expires?

[slight hijack]
Since, to the best of my knowledge, a non-resident Utah CFP is not predicated on holding a valid permit from the state of residence, this is a good reason to have one so that the CFP authority overlaps the CHL authority. This is one of the reasons I got my CFP — so that in the event that my current CHL expired before the renewal plastic arrived in hand, I could still carry under my CFP.
[/hijack]

As people in a higher pay grade than I have pointed out, if the Legislature realizes that it is possible for a Texas resident to skirt the intentions of the Texas statutes by having an out-of-state license, eventually Texans will not be allowed to use an out-of-state license in Texas.

Several states already have such provisions.

- Jim

Good grief! Policies like that are a great reason to keep my handgun license and my driver license from Indiana.

There are several officers who want you to divulge every piece of info as soon as they are with you. I am of the camp not to disclose any information until asked.

Also, I have read the manual twice now and do not see any where that I have to provide the officer with the CHL until and only if he asks. Is that correct?

Sure they would like for you to tell them...

SMOOTHboar wrote:There are several officers who want you to divulge every piece of info as soon as they are with you. I am of the camp not to disclose any information until asked.

Also, I have read the manual twice now and do not see any where that I have to provide the officer with the CHL until and only if he asks. Is that correct?

Sure they would like for you to tell them...

This is correct. However, in a traffic stop, ID is usually the first thing they ask for. In general conversation we are not required to inform the LEO that we are armed or even have a CHL.

SMOOTHboar wrote:Also, I have read the manual twice now and do not see any where that I have to provide the officer with the CHL until and only if he asks. Is that correct?

If the officer asks for ID, then you are required to also present your CHL.

He need not specifically ask to see your CHL.

seamusTX wrote:Some officers do not like the fact that the unwashed masses can now carry a handgun in a vehicle without a CHL or other prior government approval. It is just one of those those things.

This is exactly what my (LEO) CHL instructor told us. He dislikes the MPA because it so relaxed the restriction to "traveling" that anyone could have a gun in the car, provided it was concealed. His argument was that this makes it harder to arrest gang members and those involved in organized crime, because they can 'hide' a gun in the car and not be nabbed for it, unless they are stopped in the commission of another crime.

I'm not so sure I agree with his thinking.

UpTheIrons wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Some officers do not like the fact that the unwashed masses can now carry a handgun in a vehicle without a CHL or other prior government approval. It is just one of those those things.

This is exactly what my (LEO) CHL instructor told us. He dislikes the MPA because it so relaxed the restriction to "traveling" that anyone could have a gun in the car, provided it was concealed. His argument was that this makes it harder to arrest gang members and those involved in organized crime, because they can 'hide' a gun in the car and not be nabbed for it, unless they are stopped in the commission of another crime.

I'm not so sure I agree with his thinking.

Methinks his argument may be flawed .

I thought that known gang members and criminals commit an offence if they are caught in possession of a firearm regardless of the MPA .Or am I mistaken?

UpTheIrons wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Some officers do not like the fact that the unwashed masses can now carry a handgun in a vehicle without a CHL or other prior government approval. It is just one of those those things.

This is exactly what my (LEO) CHL instructor told us. He dislikes the MPA because it so relaxed the restriction to "traveling" that anyone could have a gun in the car, provided it was concealed. His argument was that this makes it harder to arrest gang members and those involved in organized crime, because they can 'hide' a gun in the car and not be nabbed for it, unless they are stopped in the commission of another crime.

I'm not so sure I agree with his thinking.

And it was relaxed because LEO's and DA's that were irritated about the MPA took an idiodic "Arrest them all and let the judge sort it out" additude. Then they arrested a close friend of the lawmaker that wrote the MPA statute.

Kevinf2349 wrote:I thought that known gang members and criminals commit an offence if they are caught in possession of a firearm regardless of the MPA .Or am I mistaken?

The MPA (PC 46.02) specifically says that it does not apply to "(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01."

Convicted felons may not ever or anywhere possess a firearm. It would also be unusual to find gang members who do not have open warrants, are not on probation, or do not possess other illegal contraband (dope, etc.) that would justify their arrest.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:As people in a higher pay grade than I have pointed out, if the Legislature realizes that it is possible for a Texas resident to skirt the intentions of the Texas statutes by having an out-of-state license, eventually Texans will not be allowed to use an out-of-state license in Texas.

Several states already have such provisions.

- Jim

And fundamentally, I agree with that position. But I'm not trying to skirt the law by having a CFP instead of a CHL, and at least one of those at a higher pay grade, whom I shall not name but his initials are Charles L. Cotton, is considering teaching a Utah CFP class himself.

I think the solution is for every CHL holder who attends a gun show, or in some other venue runs into one of those folks who irresponsible market the idea of getting a CFP instead of a CHL, to stand there in front of their booth and lecture them about the damage they are doing to the rights of those who have both permits. Because if they don't knock it off, then my CFP will one day be worthless to me.... unless I intend to travel to Washington, Ohio, or West Virginia - which ain't likely any time soon.

IMO (which is how I would operate in the exercise of MY LEO duties) If there are two laws that allow the same thing then the less stringent law should be applied. Example, if I carry under the authority of my CHL then I must adhere to all requirements (i.e. have CHL in possession at all times while carrying, notify LEO, etc). Now if I am in my car or directly enroute to my car and I do not have my CHL w/me then I am not carrying under the authority of my CHL (because it is not in my possession) and the MPA protects you. Granite its an argument on the side of the road you will most likely not win. I dont think there is a jury in Texas that would convict however there are more than a few DA's who would try there luck I am sure. Now if I have a CHL, dont have it, and get caught carrying a firearm at the food court in the mall, well then I am an idiot!!!

Until there is case law or clarification by the legislature it will be open for interpretation and application.