Texas rep. proposes no retreat bill

The term "traveling" was never formally described until 1 September, 2005 and there was no definition prior to that date. It has been defined and currently states................
Click to expand...
I have posted quotes by one of the legislators who penned the law stating that the new law does not define travelling.

The law merely says that a person should be PRESUMED to be travelling if he meets that definition. The NRA/ILA counsel and the aforementioned legislator both agree that the state can STILL prosecute people for having a gun in the car if the state can provide evidence that rebuts the presumption that the citizen is travelling. This would make NO sense if the law WERE a definition of travelling.

At least three TX DAs have formally declared that they intend to keep prosecuting these cases (which means that they feel that they can prove someone in their car is not always travelling).

I've seen all the arguments to the contrary, I even made some of them as I started out in the "It's a definition of travelling" camp. But the evidence simply doesn't support that contention.

The law changes the burden of proof from the citizen to the state--nothing more. NRA/ILA, at least one of the legislators who helped create and pass the law, and several TX DAs all agree that you can STILL be prosecuted even if you meet the criteria in the law IF the state can prove you are not travelling.

The No Retreat has a reasonable chance of passing, I think. The best part of it is how it affects related civil trials--which could stand to be strengthened a bit before passage, IMO.
That catches my attention.
Click to expand...
The quote in question is by an opponent of the law and is not particularly accurate.
 
rugerp95dc,

Well, they're not THAT smart...no Open Carry here in Texas....probably because TX gave the damn Union so much trouble after the Civil War and during Reconstruction!

-- John D.
 
Well, they're not THAT smart...no Open Carry here in Texas....probably because TX gave the damn Union so much trouble after the Civil War and during Reconstruction!
Click to expand...
Umm, more like the range wars, the wire wars and such. Cattle men vs Sheep men, Ranchers vs sod-busters, that sort of thing.
 
John D. -- no, I researched it, and it appears that neither of us are correct:

Relevant excerpt from the Tx Penal Code, including date enacted:

§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits
an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on
or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under
this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or
issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 109, ch. 49, § 1, eff. April
15, 1975; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 918, ch. 342, § 14, eff. Sept.
1, 1975; Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 1330, ch. 494, § 2, eff. June
19, 1975; Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 1879, ch. 746, § 26, eff. Aug.
29, 1977; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2273, ch. 552, § 1, eff. Aug.
31, 1981; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5113, ch. 931, § 1, eff. Aug.
29, 1983; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 262, § 21, eff. Sept. 1,
1987; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 873, § 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1987;
Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 168, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.
Redesignated from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 46.02, 46.03 and
amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, § 2, eff. Sept.
1, 1995; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 754, § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts
1995, 74th Leg., ch. 790, § 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1995,
74th Leg., ch. 998, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th
Leg., ch. 165, § 10.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th
Leg., ch. 1221, § 1, eff. June 20, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg.,
ch. 1261, § 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
​

Note the enactment date (in 1973) and effective date (in 1974). Unless this was a re-enactment from a prior statute (and I don't think it is given the context, however IANAL), then we are off by quite a number of decades.
 
The original TX handgun law was passed sometime after 1859 and before 1872. In 1859 a TX judge ruled that the right of the 2nd amendment was absolute and that the state couldn't prevent someone from carrying a firearm. By 1872, we're starting to see prosecutions for handgun carrying offenses being overturned as a result of the travelling exemption.

I have read some sources which claim that the law was primarily intended to prevent the freed slaves from carrying weapons. There had been laws preventing slaves from using/owning/carrying firearms but when the slaves were freed, those laws no longer applied. In the beginning, the new laws may have been selectively enforced. Unfortunately the case information I was able to find did not include descriptions of the defendants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top