[scjohn]

In Texas handgun laws, without a permit, it says you are allowed to carry the pistol "while traveling." Can someone clear up what this means?

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=TX

 

[Lumberjack98]

Read this post:

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=836

 

[brandon14295]

starting september 1st 2005 in texas, anyone who can purchase and own a handgun in texas can carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle only. without having a chl.

 

[REC613]

+1 Im taking penal code in college right now this is a new law just have to keep it concealed

 

[Senegat]

This law seems to reduce the risk of carrying in a car, but doesn't seem to remove it entirely. Until there is case law which more clearly defines the bounds of this amended code section, I, personally, am weary. Someone is going to be the guinea pig who gets to be the new case law for this code section, and I don't want it to be me.

 

[orc4hire]

This law seems to reduce the risk of carrying in a car, but doesn't seem to remove it entirely. Until there is case law which more clearly defines the bounds of this amended code section, I, personally, am weary. Someone is going to be the guinea pig who gets to be the new case law for this code section, and I don't want it to be me.

The law is clear and unambiguous, but the Houston DA doesn't like it and has declared his intention to prosecute anyone caught legally carrying a handgun in their car without a CHL. Which only proves that obeying the law is not absolute protection when the people who are supposed to be enforcing the laws turn criminal.

 

[qballwill]

Im a Deputy Constable in Texas, I am on the conservative side, so of course I encourage people to carry in their car. I dont care if you are driving to the corner store one block away... I would consider that traveling to the store... I can gaurantee that Im not going give anyone a hard time for having a concealed pistol in their car unless It is obvious that they are up to no good.

 

[miller]

I live in louisiana and I work in the oilfield, about once a year I go to training classes in sugarland,TX for 2 weeks at a time. Does this mean that until I get my CCW if I have to go to TX I can legally carry concealed in my vehicle :?: :?:

sounds kind of fishy to me I think that I will just wait until I get my CCW permit then I can carry into the hotel as well and do not have to leave my "BABY" in the truck.

 

[orc4hire]

I live in louisiana and I work in the oilfield, about once a year I go to training classes in sugarland,TX for 2 weeks at a time. Does this mean that until I get my CCW if I have to go to TX I can legally carry concealed in my vehicle :?: :?:

Yes.

sounds kind of fishy to me I think that I will just wait until I get my CCW permit then I can carry into the hotel as well and do not have to leave my "BABY" in the truck.

Well, no one's insisting that you believe it, or that you carry, but that's what the law says. You can believe in it or not as you like.

***
H.B. No. 823


AN ACT

relating to the applicability of the offense of unlawful carrying
of weapons to certain persons and to the consequence of certain
presumptions in the prosecution of a criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed
to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

SECTION 2. Section 2.05, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b), when [When] this code or another penal law
establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the
following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as follows:
(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(B) that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense
sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C) that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the
presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption
for any purpose.
(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a
presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it
has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the
presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do
not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the
jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.
SECTION 3. The changes in law made by this Act apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered
by the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of
this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that
date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.




______________________________ ______________________________

President of the Senate Speaker of the House

I certify that H.B. No. 823 was passed by the House on April
20, 2005, by a non-record vote; and that the House concurred in
Senate amendments to H.B. No. 823 on May 27, 2005, by a non-record
vote.

______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House


I certify that H.B. No. 823 was passed by the Senate, with
amendments, on May 24, 2005, by the following vote: Yeas 29, Nays
2.

______________________________
Secretary of the Senate



APPROVED: __________________

Date





__________________

Governor

***

If you meet the five criteria outlined, you are traveling. The only way a court can prove othewise is by challenging those five criteria. That's what the law says, and that's what the guy who wrote it, and the legislative record, say it means.

 

[one-eyed-fatman]

It's a law for Texans traveling inside Texas. I didn't see anything about people from other states traveling into Texas. Or did I miss something?

 

[orc4hire]

I don't see anything restricting it to Texans.

 

[one-eyed-fatman]

I just emailed the DPS here. We'll see what they say.

 

[jnclement]

Here's a long, involved article and discussion on the law on Packing.org.

http://www.packing.org/news/articleview/27/

I read it until the lawyers started discussing nuances, and then got a brain cramp and quit reading. I got my CHL so I wouldn't have to worry about things like this. Very informative though.

 

[one-eyed-fatman]

I got my CHL so I wouldn't have to worry about things like this. Very informative though.

That's why I also have my CHL. I'll differ with you on the "Very informative though" statement. Like most laws it isn't very informative at all.

 

[shipwreck]

The problem with the change is that it's not protection from being arrested. You might have a legal defense with the law change, but it would still suck to be arrested...

If U wanna carry in your car, its safer to get a permit.

 

[therooster]

no such thing as protection from being arrested.

you cant beat the ride...

 

[orc4hire]

The problem with the change is that it's not protection from being arrested. You might have a legal defense with the law change, but it would still suck to be arrested...

If U wanna carry in your car, its safer to get a permit.

It's as much protection against being arrested as any law. 'Traveling' is not defined as a defense to prosecution. The law says that Penal Code 46.02 (unlawfully carrying weapons) DOES NOT APPLY to someone who is traveling. There is no legal basis for making an arrest.

That said, any cop can arrest you at any time, for any reason, and tack on Resisting Arrest for good measure. NO LAW is absolute protection from being arrested.

 

[shipwreck]

Yes, you are right. But look at that DA in Harris County. He is set on arresting people anyway. So, that's a grey area I wouldn't want to be in.

 

[orc4hire]

Yes, you are right. But look at that DA in Harris County. He is set on arresting people anyway. So, that's a grey area I wouldn't want to be in.

Yet another reason to avoid Houston. As if any more were needed....