Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: thackney
Yes, 411.205 still says there is a requirement to display. However, there is no longer a penalty (in 411.187 Revocation) for not doing so or for refusing to do so.

HB2730 struck the following from 411.205 in 2009:

 Sec. 411.205.  REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY [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.]

HB2730 also said:

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. However, a final conviction for an offense under Section 411.205 that exists on the effective date of this article is unaffected by this article. 

SECTION 12A.04.  This article takes effect September 1, 2009.

So we can't be prosecuted under 411.205 and we can't be revoked.

79 posted on 07/16/2014 2:50:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan

Would it be grounds to deny a renewal?

I don’t know why they remove the penalty and cannot prosecute, but still keep the requirement in place.

It seems it is not the same as removing the requirement.


81 posted on 07/16/2014 2:52:44 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: thackney
Doh! I forgot to post the relevant stricken part of 411.187.

(2)  [fails to display a license as required by Section 411.205;

83 posted on 07/16/2014 2:59:37 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson