How many states require notification?

Status
Not open for further replies.
not sure if the info is current, but its a start.
 

Attachments

  • Must Inform.jpg
    Must Inform.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 1,402
Could you double-check on TX, please?

I could have sworn it was the session two years' ago where CHL holders were given the equivalent "don't tell" to non-CHL.

My understanding is that we still are "Tell if asked." But you were allowed to be mute otherwise.

I could be wrong, tool it's happened before.
 
Presently,only 10 states have the "must notify officer" rule:

AK,LA,MI,NE,NC,OH,OK,SC,TX and AR.
Click to expand...
And with the able assistance of Officer Harless of the Canton PD, Ohio stands an excellent chance of dropping off the list in the near future.
 
Deanimator said:
As I understand it, Texas still "requires" notification, but the penalty for failure to do so was removed.
Click to expand...

That is correct, a result of some legislators not wanting to remove the notification law for fear of being seen as weak by LE groups, but not stopping the rest of the legislators from removing any associated penalties.

Bizarre.
 
TexasRifleman said:
That is correct, a result of some legislators not wanting to remove the notification law for fear of being seen as weak by LE groups, but not stopping the rest of the legislators from removing any associated penalties.

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Weak on what? Law-abiding citizens?
 
There are states where you aren't legally required to tell an LEO you're carrying a gun? Even if blatantly asked, there's no penalty for lying?

Why? How could anyone possibly think that's a good idea?

Damn cop-killer-friendly states.
 
Weak on what? Law-abiding citizens?
Click to expand...

Weak on their blind support for anything the LE organizations want. If the LE groups ask for X and the legislators don't give X then these groups will say that legislators are weak on crime.

It's politics, which never makes sense, which is one of the reasons we avoid the topic here. You can't rationally discuss something completely irrational :)
 
TexasRifleman said:
Weak on their blind support for anything the LE organizations want. If the LE groups ask for X and the legislators don't give X then these groups will say that legislators are weak on crime.

It's politics, which never makes sense
Click to expand...
Actually, in this case, it makes perfect sense. We aren't dealing with X and Y, so I won't open the forum to any random scenario that can be thought up. What we're dealing with is a change to a law that gives people the freedom to tell an officer they don't have a gun, when they do.

In other words, Texas' apparently ass-backwards politicians felt it was important that they go out of their way to make police work even more dangerous than it already is. The question is, why? Who benefits from this? The only person who has a reason to hide a weapon from a cop, that I can come up with, is a criminal.

EDIT: To be clear, I understand politics aren't discussed here. I'm simply asking what the supporting argument is for this legislation. It doesn't seem to benefit anyone, but makes things worse for many.
 
Regardless of "must inform", IMHO, it's prudent to gently inform the LEO at the first possible opportunity because, given their position, it's only polite and respectful. When I get my CHL I will hand it to the LEO with it on top of my DL if stopped for any reason.
 
I agree, but not necessarily because it's the polite or respectful thing to do. Frankly, it's just the safest route to take, for everyone involved, including the driver who's legally carrying.

The first thing that comes to mind when I see a gun that I don't expect is that the person I'm dealing with may intend to use it against me. If that person had just previously denied having any sort of weapon, my alarm level would increase exponentially.

I wouldn't fault any officer for attempting to forcibly disarm a person who has a gun, if that same person previously denied having one. Does that mean I think every cop should handle this type of situation in that way? Not at all. But I wouldn't hold it against him if he did.
 
Bobson-

Texas laws, like the laws of most states are not always rational.

In this case, however, the removal of the penalty for not informing for CHL holders made some twisted sense.

No CHL is required in TX to carry concealed in your car.

There was no requirement to inform for NON-CHL holders for years, causing the perverse situation that you only had to inform if you had a CHL.

Instead of removing the requirement for CHL holders to inform, the gutless legislators just removed the penalty for not doing it.

I am not sure where you got started on the situation of lying to an officer if asked about carrying...that is not part of what this law is about.

Bob
 
Bobson said:
In other words, Texas' apparently ass-backwards politicians felt it was important that they go out of their way to make police work even more dangerous than it already is. The question is, why? Who benefits from this? The only person who has a reason to hide a weapon from a cop, that I can come up with, is a criminal.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not why it was done that way. The reason is more complicated than that.

At one time, in Texas, you could carry a concealed handgun without a permit only if you were "traveling". The definition of traveling was sort of nebulous at best though and it's actual interpretation varied from county to county, DA to DA, jury to jury. So, the legislature eventually removed the traveling restriction and opened up unlicensed carry to pretty much anyone, in their own vehicle or a vehicle under their control.

Well, since unlicensed carry had been legal in Texas for many decades, with the traveling provision, and that law had never required notification to LE, the removal of the traveling provision also left no requirement for notification.

So now the law wound up in a very weird place. You had a place where LICENSED carriers were required to notify LE, and UNLICENSED carriers had no duty to notify.

As an LEO who should you be more afraid of, someone with a permit or someone without? Statistically the permitted carrier is much less likely to be a danger so the law really was completely upside down.

So the legislature found itself in a weird spot and they took the most simple path, over the objection of some LE organizations. They simply made the permitted carrier law match the un-permitted carrier law. But that sent the LE lobbyists into a frenzy, for no legitimate reason and the legislature revised their work to simply remove any penalty, leaving things where they are today. But it's nearly always easier to remove or negate something in a law than to add new items, so that's how it went down.

Bobson said:
Frankly, it's just the safest route to take, for everyone involved, including the driver who's legally carrying.
Click to expand...

This is pretty dangerous actually. If I have a gun, and I do not inform the LEO, and the LEO never knows about it, the gun stays safely in my door where it is not going to just fire itself. As soon as LE are aware of the gun there is always the temptation to "make things safe". Handling a gun, especially a model the LE might not be familiar with, is just asking for a negligent discharge. Guns fire when someone is messing with them, not when they are safely sitting untouched. It's much safer for everyone if that gun remains untouched.

And to your point about why someone would have a reason to "hide" a gun from police, that's not really it either. Why should I tell police if I am carrying a legal item in my car?

Should I inform them I have a lighter? a hammer? a box of Snickers bars? All of those are legal items. Why should I have to tell an LEO when I am in possession of a legal item? That whole pesky rights thing again....

And honestly, if a person is the type who might shoot a cop do you really think they are going to inform the cop they have a gun in the first place?

So the end result is that now both permitted and unpermitted carriers are treated the same, and that is as it should be. One can argue whether or not notification is a good thing, but having one group be required to notify and another group not have that requirement was very bad discriminatory law.
 
Bobson said:
There are states where you aren't legally required to tell an LEO you're carrying a gun? Even if blatantly asked, there's no penalty for lying?

Why? How could anyone possibly think that's a good idea?

Damn cop-killer-friendly states.
Click to expand...
I think it's a great idea. There's a long list of gun control laws that I would be willing to live with over must notify if given the choice. It is in my opinion the worst of the worst. Being forced to admit to the police that you're doing something legal? People find this acceptable?
I wouldn't live in a must notify state because under no circumstance will I ever notify, even if asked, and I don't feel like racking up those charges.
 
We have a number of rights that benefit nobody, and make things far worse for many; yet we still have them. You can cite the right to do something all you want, and it isn't going to justify doing it.

To a civilian, the law was an inconvenience and another example of unfair targeting.

To an LEO, the law was the ability to be proactive about my safety, and to punish people who try to endanger my life and the lives of my brothers.

You decide what's more important for yourself.

Have a good day guys.
 
Last edited:
Bobson said:
To a civilian, the law was an inconvenience and another example of unfair targeting.

To an LEO, the law was the ability to be proactive about my safety, and to punish people who try to endanger my life and the lives of my brothers.

You decide what's more important for yourself.

Have a good day guys.
Click to expand...

My convenience is very important to me! I have no desire to take my concealed handgun out and hand it over to anyone else, especially some one who is unfamiliar with the weapon, and may try to do something stupid with it. Like try to unload it or "make it safe". All of which I am going to have to undo as soon as he retunrs it to me.
Provided of course he allows me to draw my weapon and hand it to him, which is stupid on his part! So I have no desire to get out of my vehicle at gun point, "Assume the position", and have some fumbling idiot disarm me. All so he can give me a ticket for speeding, bad tail light or just because he needs to write a certain number of tickets and I won the lottery.

TexasRifleman was absolutely correct about negligent discharges happening when weapons are handled, not when they are sitting safe untouched.

I have no desire to endanger Law Enforcement personal, no matter how obnoxious and overbearing and anal retentive many of them are. I am certainly not going to shoot some idiot over a traffic ticket, no matter how undeserved I feel it to be.

If you are so fearful of the public, that you can't conceive that some one with a gun might not want to shoot you, then perhaps you should seek different employment. Your desire "to punish people who try to endanger..." assumes that anybody with a gun is out to do you harm. A position I reject. I certainly don't want to be stopped by some paranoid idiot on a hair trigger, especially if I have to inform him I have a gun, and he immediately assumes I intend him harm.
Very few States have a "shall inform" provision in their Laws, and with good reason. As States have more experience with Concealed Carry, I fully expect such silly provisions to be removed.
 
M-Cameron said:
not sure if the info is current, but its a start.
Click to expand...

By the way, thanks for the map. I was unaware that Oklahoma was a "Shall inform" State. Not that I was planning to go to Oklahoma any time soon, and would have brushed up on their rules before I did.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/
Is a very good resource for the traveling public, it contains links to the individual States carry laws.
 
As I understand it, Texas still "requires" notification, but the penalty for failure to do so was removed.
Click to expand...
That is correct, a result of some legislators not wanting to remove the notification law for fear of being seen as weak by LE groups, but not stopping the rest of the legislators from removing any associated penalties.

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

If you think that's bizarre, Arizona does the same thing with polygamous cohabitation: It's illegal, but there's no penalty.
 
Deanimator said:
"Prudent", huh?

Watch this video and tell me how "prudent" it is:

Canton Cop Threatens to Murder CHL Holder after Preventing Him from Notifying
Click to expand...
I watched that video. That is a rogue cop working for a rogue police force working for a rogue mayor. Are you saying you'd rather "surprise" a cop if/when he/she finds your carry firearm? He/she will think you're "trying" to surprise them for "whatever reason". Not the prudent option, IMHO. But you do as you think is "wise"... and so will I.
 
Last edited:
I watched that video. That is a rogue cop working for a rogue police force working for a rogue mayor. Are you saying you'd rather "surprise" a cop if/when he/she finds your carry firearm? He/she will think you're "trying" to surprise them for "whatever reason". Not the prudent option, IMHO. But you do as you think is "wise"... and so will I.
Click to expand...
He TRIED to notify, and you can see what it got him.

If that's not enough, try this from the VCDL website:

False Arrest by Fairfax Cops

He notified when it wasn't required. Tell me, what did that get him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top