I haven't seen anything in this thread that indicates in which state
this occurred. So, I'll use Texas as an example -- your mileage may
vary in other states.
In Texas, the law says that a CHL holder must produce their CHL (and
driver's license or ID certificate) when asked for identification -- but
ONLY if the CHL holder is carrying a handgun "on or about their person""
ยง 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.
In practice, an officer in Texas that checks a driver's license for
outstanding warrants will be notified that that person has a valid CHL.
Depending on the jurisdiction and the officer's discretion, they may
query the CHL holder about it. Some CHL holders preempt that discussion
by always showing their CHL and informing the officer whether they
actually have a handgun.
But, my point is that in Texas, simply displaying a CHL can be
interpreted as "I have a handgun on or about my person". If you aren't
armed, there's no legal requirement to volunteer a CHL.
It sounds like one side or both had an attitude problem -- and that the
resulting conflict was manifested in being charged for an offense that
is (at best) simply splitting hairs.
Henry E Schaffer wrote:
> C. D. Tavares writes:
>> On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Henry E Schaffer wrote:
>>>> Defendant was stopped for a minor traffic infraction. Reasoning that
>>>> "I have a gun!" might be unduly exciting to the officer, he handed
>>>> him his driver's license and his concealed carry license.
>>> Wouldn't this count as informing by communication in writing?
>> I'm confident the prosecution will think to argue that having a
>> license for a gun doesn't guarantee you have a gun on you.
>
> The purpose (obvious and perhaps in the legislative record) of the
> requirement to disclose bearing a handgun is to prevent the LEO from
> being surprised by someone being armed.
>
> Having a non-armed person claim to be armed would be an annoyance, but
> would not be an actual danger to the LEO.
>
> However, this discussion is irrelevant - the question in this case is
> whether the requirement to inform the LEO as to the presence of a
> handgun is accomplished by written communication instead of oral.
>
> --henry schaffer
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to [email protected]
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
> people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
> forward the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
