You just read the defination of traveling. In a motor vehicle, not in in the commision of a crime, and not a member of a street gang. That is it, nothing more! When the law changed, my son who is LEO, a LEO firearms instructor and teaches in Academy checked to be sure I had put a handgun in his mothers car.
PX4 and Texas Laws question...
- Thread starter TwoKings
- Start date
Here's a quote from a man who disagrees.
"The legislature has likewise never defined “traveling” because a definition invariably has the unintended effect of unfairly limiting the term to a narrow set of circumstances.
...
In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances."
...
In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances."
This is an excerpt from a longer article written by Mr. Terry Keel--one of the members of the 79th Texas Legislature which enacted HB 823, the new travelling law. But not just any member. Mr. Keel was one of the authors of the bill.
Mr. Keel, one of the legislators who crafted and passed this bill states in no uncertain terms that TX law has never and still does not define travelling. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Mr. Keel also states:
" I am confident that the new law will assist law enforcement in doing its job while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens from the threat of arrest for merely exercising their right to arm themselves while traveling----a right to which they are already entitled."
In other words, this doesn't give citizens a new right, it only protects citizens exercising a right "to which they are already entitled" from the threat of arrest. The new law does not define travelling, it merely says that an officer is to presume you are travelling unless there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to the contrary. The new law does not change the legality of carrying a handgun in the car without a license, it merely makes it much less likely that you'll be arrested and much more difficult for the state to convict you.
http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=1716
Glockamolie
New member
If I fit the 5 criteria layed out, by the letter of the law I should be covered to drive down the block to the convenience store.
Yes, unless the officer observes or is given evidence that proves you are not travelling. The law doesn't say you ARE travelling, it says the officer is to PRESUME you are travelling. If something obviously contradicts that presumption (for example if you were to tell him you're just going down the block to the convenience store and back), he can still arrest you.
Why is going down the block to the convenience store and back not traveling? Traveling is going from one place to another. Case law from the past doesn't help, as it varied from county to county, judge to judge. Whether it's overnight travel or two counties or whatever is irrelevant, as that wasn't and still isn't part of the law. Yes, of course you could still take a trip to the pokey. I still think that, in effect, they DID define traveling. Put my "convenience store run" scenario to a jury. Then read them the presumption of traveling: Was he in a motor vehicle? Yep. Was he breaking any law other than the traffic law he was pulled over for? Nope. Was he otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm? Nope. Is he a gang member? Nope. Was the handgun in plain view? Nope.
Well, dammit, he musta been traveling. Would I personally hang my hat on that law to carry everywhere? Nope. That's why I got a CHL.
Yes, unless the officer observes or is given evidence that proves you are not travelling. The law doesn't say you ARE travelling, it says the officer is to PRESUME you are travelling. If something obviously contradicts that presumption (for example if you were to tell him you're just going down the block to the convenience store and back), he can still arrest you.
Why is going down the block to the convenience store and back not traveling? Traveling is going from one place to another. Case law from the past doesn't help, as it varied from county to county, judge to judge. Whether it's overnight travel or two counties or whatever is irrelevant, as that wasn't and still isn't part of the law. Yes, of course you could still take a trip to the pokey. I still think that, in effect, they DID define traveling. Put my "convenience store run" scenario to a jury. Then read them the presumption of traveling: Was he in a motor vehicle? Yep. Was he breaking any law other than the traffic law he was pulled over for? Nope. Was he otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm? Nope. Is he a gang member? Nope. Was the handgun in plain view? Nope.
Well, dammit, he musta been traveling. Would I personally hang my hat on that law to carry everywhere? Nope. That's why I got a CHL.
Glockamolie,
You don't have to convince me--I'm certainly not going to arrest you for having a gun in the car.
I can tell you that there are educated and informed people who believe that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to convict someone for posession of a handgun in a car(in the absence of other charges), but there hasn't been a test case yet. Until then, everyone can decide whether or not it's worth the risk. I know of at least two DAs who have put their intent to continue prosecuting these offenses into writing. The average DA knows a lot more about the law than I do.
All I can tell you is that travelling is not defined, according to the author of the bill and that the law doesn't change the legality of carrying in a car, it only changes the burden of proof (of travelling/not travelling) from the citizen to the state.
You don't have to convince me--I'm certainly not going to arrest you for having a gun in the car.
I can only tell you that I'm not aware of anything in the law or case law that implies that such a short trip is travelling. In fact, I have been led to believe that there is case law to say that driving back and forth to work with a gun (regardless of the distance) is not travelling. In light of that, it seems a real stretch to say that driving a couple of blocks and back would qualify.
You've already lost if you end up in court--unless you have a lot of money and can afford the time off from work.
I can tell you that there are educated and informed people who believe that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to convict someone for posession of a handgun in a car(in the absence of other charges), but there hasn't been a test case yet. Until then, everyone can decide whether or not it's worth the risk. I know of at least two DAs who have put their intent to continue prosecuting these offenses into writing. The average DA knows a lot more about the law than I do.
All I can tell you is that travelling is not defined, according to the author of the bill and that the law doesn't change the legality of carrying in a car, it only changes the burden of proof (of travelling/not travelling) from the citizen to the state.