Interesting twist, see below:
Yes, assuming that you're referring to the para (1) that states DL requirement.
Interesting twist, see below:
this is vague in the extreme. What department? The police department? It could be the department for the equality of cuckoo birds for all the sense that makes
The penalty for that particular violation was removed a few years ago, so can you really say something is illegal if there is no penalty?
Many states' preemption laws have no penalty, too. Does that mean we can't demand compliance by rogue local governments? This is a big problem in Nevada.
Many states' preemption laws have no penalty, too. Does that mean we can't demand compliance by rogue local governments? This is a big problem in Nevada.
SECTION 12A.03. An offense under Section 411.205,
Government Code, may not be prosecuted after the effective date of
this article. If, on the effective date of this article, a criminal
action is pending for an offense under Section 411.205, the action
is dismissed on that date. ...
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.
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.
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.And on a side note not directly connected to this thread...but sort of....it is nice to see that there are some discussions ongoing here again as it gets kinda quiet at times. :banana:
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
... 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.....
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.
[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.
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 longI 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.
... 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.
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.
Fingers crossed that carriers and cops all behave. It takes two to tango.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk