TexasCHLforum.com

i've read that there is no longer a penalty for failing to display a CHL card with your DL. does this mean that it also isn't required to carry the CHL card on your person at all?
i ask just because i like to keep my wallet light and it would be one less thing to request a new copy of if i ever lost it or had it stolen.

gizm0steve wrote:i've read that there is no longer a penalty for failing to display a CHL card with your DL. does this mean that it also isn't required to carry the CHL card on your person at all?
i ask just because i like to keep my wallet light and it would be one less thing to request a new copy of if i ever lost it or had it stolen.

This is true. I, also, like to keep my wallet light, but my CHL doesn't weigh that much so I will leave it there. ANAL

CHL and your carry weapons go together. You carry both or you are in a legal trouble.

Say an LEO, stopped you and you were carrying with no CHL Card. Let us say, he asked you are you carrying and you said, yes. You failed to present a CHL card since you decided that you no longer have keep it in your wallet. Let us say, the LEO has his communication device "hanging up" on him and he cannot proof that you are CHLer. What do you expect the LEO will do?

Took my CHL class last Sunday!

You dont have to present your card if you get pulled over in your car.
This is because TX clarified the law on carrying a concealed handgun in your car WITHOUT a CHL.
You can carry concealed in your car without a CHL and do not have to diclose to the LEO that you have a gun.
Thus, they changed the CHL law to state the same.

If you are carrying on your person outside your vehicle, you MUST have your card with you. Period.

Hope this helps,
Ty

AustinBoy wrote:
If you are carrying on your person outside your vehicle, you MUST have your card with you. Period.

This is true.

I would like to add , even though the penalty has been removed for not presenting your CHL
when asked for ID by a LEO , it would be a good gesture to show it any way IMO .

Ok so they removed the penalty but not the requirement hence they can still charge you with the crime that holds no penalty, If this is the case I guess you can still go for a ride, go to court etc... or am I missing something?

suthdj wrote:Ok so they removed the penalty but not the requirement hence they can still charge you with the crime that holds no penalty, If this is the case I guess you can still go for a ride, go to court etc... or am I missing something?

maybe they can arrest you until you can produce or prove that you have a CHL.

suthdj wrote:Ok so they removed the penalty but not the requirement hence they can still charge you with the crime that holds no penalty, If this is the case I guess you can still go for a ride, go to court etc... or am I missing something?

Crazy ain't it ?

That's why I would suggest just showing it.
If I'm on the side of the road with the possibility of getting a ticket , I don't want to do anything
to get on the Police Officers bad side...but that's just me.

I agree with USA1.
I understand the change but I will present both IDs.

so i guess there's more than one question answered here:

1. must i present chl with a dl? no
2. should i present chl with a dl? yes
3. must i carry the chl? yes
4. should i carry the chl? yes (to satisfy presenting it)

gizm0steve wrote:so i guess there's more than one question answered here:

1. must i present chl with a dl? no
2. should i present chl with a dl? yes
3. must i carry the chl? yes
4. should i carry the chl? yes (to satisfy presenting it)

1. The answer is, Yes. They have just removed the penalty for not showing it. Semantics, I know, but still.

AustinBoy wrote:If you are carrying on your person outside your vehicle, you MUST have your card with you. Period.

More accurately, if you don't have your plastic, you may only carry in the places/circumstances an unlicensed person may carry. You must carry the card to get the CHL benefit of 46.02 nonapplicability. (IANAL)

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying

thanks everyone.

This needs to be fixed to do away with the requirement to carry the license. The LEO will know the person has a license when they do the DL check and there is no safety problem for LEOs from CHLs as proven by the data that are widely available. This is why it is necessary we ensure our state elected servants are pro-2A and CHL. It was a compromise with a left-leaning, hard headed Equus africanus asinus/Democrat that caused this mess in 2009.

shootthesheet wrote:This needs to be fixed to do away with the requirement to carry the license. The LEO will know the person has a license when they do the DL check and there is no safety problem for LEOs from CHLs as proven by the data that are widely available. This is why it is necessary we ensure our state elected servants are pro-2A and CHL. It was a compromise with a left-leaning, hard headed Equus africanus asinus/Democrat that caused this mess in 2009.

If I were an LEO I wouldn't bet my life on that...

I definitely do not understand the intent of your last sentence. What exactly did the person that you allude to, cause?