-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Possibly moving to TX
- Thread starter rightwinglibertarian
- Start date
Not if you read not just that part of the code, but rather that entire section. It refers to DPS.
Last edited:
You are mistaken in that the penalty for not showing your CHL was removed. I don't believe that law addressed DL at all in its language.
Just for clarification I called DPS directly yesterday afternoon. The answer was that the law has required and still requires presentation of your DL or other state issued ID. Failure to carry that to produce it when required is a violation of the law. They don't address what any LEO might or might not then do.
I myself will carry both my CHL and DL as it seems clear to me that the law requires it. I will not carry a firearm on the belief that I only need to worry about that IF I am stopped. If you OC in Texas after January 1st, you **will likely** be stopped and requested to show ID and your CHL - it's just a matter of when and where as LEO across the state has said that is their intent. I feel confident that if I am stopped, my being polite with the LEO doing their job, and my producing both will result in my being on my way pretty quickly. If you believe that a game about the language of the requirement is the way to go you are free to do so but your actual mileage may vary - please do let everyone know how that worked out for you.
I myself will carry both my CHL and DL as it seems clear to me that the law requires it. I will not carry a firearm on the belief that I only need to worry about that IF I am stopped. If you OC in Texas after January 1st, you **will likely** be stopped and requested to show ID and your CHL - it's just a matter of when and where as LEO across the state has said that is their intent. I feel confident that if I am stopped, my being polite with the LEO doing their job, and my producing both will result in my being on my way pretty quickly. If you believe that a game about the language of the requirement is the way to go you are free to do so but your actual mileage may vary - please do let everyone know how that worked out for you.
Yupper. Especially true early on with OC here as there were quite a few local PDs that outright lobbied against the law, and some going so far as to suggest that nobody needs to carry, blood in the streets, for the children you know....I'd be very surprised if we don't see just that - literal compliance by rogue governments. Who don't want you to carry anyway. It's like with the city zoos right now that are clearly in violation of the new 30.06 posting law, and despite the probable daily $10,500 penalty refuse to take the signage down. Because they don't like preemption either, and push up against that clear language daily. So their enforcement in their favor or conflicting or confusing language is a foregone conclusion until higher authority orders that. And then the court challenge is complete. Maybe then they comply. Maybe.
qednick
Regular Member
It's still ridiculous either way. I mean, I would've thought a CHL/LTC would be a far higher standard form of state-issued "ID" since the holder has gone through a full background check, etc. What's the point in having to show the additional form of ID? It doesn't make any sense. We need to make a point of addressing this for the next legislative session...if anything because it's simply stupid. Of course, we will be aiming for "constitutional" carry next time around and it will hopefully be a moot point.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I think the scenarios are slightly different considering in this case the offense was removed after existing and the bill in which it was removed specifically stated that existing cases be dropped and no future prosecutions for violation be made. So, I kinda get the feeling they didn't want people to be prosecuted for violation of 411.205.
No, you're confusing two issues.
Firstly, the requirement about DL wasn't removed. That bill removed the penalty for not having your CHL with you, not your DL and it doesn't address carrying or not carrying your DL (in that part of the code). Secondly, the intent of the legislature as recorded during the hearing was they didn't want for someone to lose their CHL simply because they may have walked out the door one time without it.
It was passed to ensure that simply leaving your CHL in your other pocket didn't turn you into a criminal. That had nothing to do with mitigating or removing the requirements of 411.205 to produce identification.
An easy comparison can be found in that if you get stopped and don't have your insurance paperwork or your registration paperwork with you, you can then later produce it as evidence that you had it. Or if you are caught on a day that your DL isn't in your wallet - you can be given a ticket, but show up in court with it as proof that you actually had a DL. Same kind of a thing.
I can't say that I disagree with that. Unfortunately, it hasn't become standard (yet) for states to legally stipulate that a CHL (or their variant on it) must be accepted as ID. And then there are the Federal laws. There are strict laws for what a DL must contain and standards that apply related to verifiable identification and connectivity to national crime databases, and then there are the immigration issues regarding who can or cannot get a DL on what day and where (another whole issue not topical here). So I believe that there is a long way to go before a CHL must be acceptable as ID for the government, especially at the Federal level. I am glad that it must be accepted, for example, by any business in Texas. That's a small baby step in the right direction with that issue.
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
not for long. I'm going to find, or start an open carry thread and trust me it will be full of experiences both good and bad. OC will be brand new so people will be putting no gun signs up all over the place and i'm going to name and shame them. Hopefully also have enough people where I am to do the odd protest/walk. Best thing to do is make so much noise the liberals are drowned out.
Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk
qednick
Regular Member
I was just going to say... pretty soon we should finally have our own "experiences" thread at long last!
Earlier I had mentioned something about printing some OC brochures back in 2011/13. When I PM'd you I realized from earlier messages that was actually way back in 2008/09. Didn't even realize I'd been on here that long or that how long I've been waiting for this. It's been an uphill battle to get where we're at and we've still got a lot of work to do. I noticed the TX forum got quiet for a couple months after OC passing. I really hope some people haven't just drifted off believing they got the victory we wanted.
In many states, like Nevada, California, and Oregon, the permits are issued by counties, not by states. This is a benefit to the people in the rural counties of CA, who wouldn't otherwise get permits. It's a detriment to consistency otherwise, though. Not sure which is better when you have a system that is already infringing on the RKBA.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
[strike]I don't think you understand what I was saying. When referring to intent I was referring to the intent of GC 411.205 in the first place, not the intent behind removing the offense.[/strike] this doesn't even matter. If we can't understand each other there's no point talking about it. See secondly below.
Secondly, what statute requires one to carry a DL, and what statute would I be in violation of for simply carrying a concealed handgun without having in my possession a DL? You have not answered this question. I am formally requesting that you cite the law per the forum rules.
ETA: the point is simple - a "de facto" "requirement" (if there is one, I remain unconvinced) is materially different than a statutory requirement, and one should not be presented as the other.
ETA again: I'm aware you don't have any statute in mind, cause there isn't one, so let's just go on and understand that there is no statute which explicitly requires you have in your possession a DL. Whether or not you might face legal trouble if a LE demands ID and you provide only a license to carry is in the air, but I highly doubt that you would face prosecution, unless you thoroughly pissed off the officer and they decided to railroad charges. Ask a lawyer.
Last edited:
Get real. I've long since cited the law which requires you to produce the DL. Based on that law, ipso facto there is clearly a requirement to possess it in order to have a legal requirement to produce it. One cannot exist without the other. And so absent you citing ANY law which indicates that a DL is only required to be magically possessed at that exact moment it is demanded, the argument stands or else the law that would require you to produce it could not exist.
But you do feel free to not carry one, and if you get stopped please do let us know how it goes. Meanwhile this thread was about the OP asking about moving to TX and what out of state permits as his WA permit wasn't valid in TX, and I answered that by providing that his WA permit IS valid in TX. Feel free to continue debating the illogical, but having answered the OP, I choose not to waste any more time.
Last edited:
rightwinglibertarian
Regular Member
Oh i'll keep it busy for sure. Between adding to a thread of stores to boycott, LEO encounters and general experiences there will be plenty of activity. I didnt expect even this thread to carry on for so long
Sent from my HTC Desire 626s using Tapatalk
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
Comes as no surprise to me, I predicted it would happen. The fervor could only last so long. It may pick up again if the police misbehave enough, which is sad to say.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Fingers crossed that carriers and cops all behave. It takes two to tango.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
notalawyer
Regular Member
When, not "if". That much I can almost guarantee.
notalawyer
Regular Member
If by that you mean, one following the law and the other not, then yes it takes two to tango. I'll leave it to you to ponder the probability of which will do which.