"Travelling" in Texas (Harris Co)

The trooper responded, " Well, whats the matter with you????"
Click to expand...

I like that.

I can say I've never had any problems with the DPS, BUT, I've seen them train and they are a cut above. No Barny Fifes there.

I have no doubt if I acted obnoxious I'd be in world of hurt.

They will do to ride the river with.
 
As has been noted in a couple of the above posts, concealed in the vehicle is fine, however, without a CHL, I WOULD NOT carry on my person, while maybe technically legal, maybe, to me it just seems like a recipe for disaster should you get stopped, or if you have to exit the vehicle quickly or often.

As for the traveling clause, it is my understanding that with the current law, an individual is assumed to be traveling unless proven otherwise. My CHL instructor, a former police officer, (though he was a little paranoid) gave us the advice that if you are asked your destination by the officer, you should state: "I'm traveling to X." This gives you one more leg to stand on should you need it. Most conversations with an officer are recorded via their two-way radios or dashboard cameras (I think) and if it comes to it, you are on the record stating that you are traveling. This won't help you if you are in flagrant violation of the law, but it might make the difference between a DA pressing charges on a shaky case or not.

Note:
I am not a lawyer and this advice should be taken for what it is, anonymous crap on the internet. I won't be there to help you out if I'm wrong, which has been known to happen on some RARE occasions. :D
 
You do not have to declare "travelling" status any longer. The Castle Doctrine considers your vehicle an extension of your home-- all you have to do is keep the firearm concealed. I would definately tell the LEO that you have a gun and where it was if he asks. Other than that, for a routine stop-- ie speeding or something, just treat it as normal.
 
You can legally have your gun, loaded or not, on your person when going directly from your home to your car, while in your car, and from your car back to your home. Perfectly legal.
 
Let's say I keep the hangun in a gun case, on the floor or the back seat. Is that "out of sight?" That's how I usually transport it. Should I put the case in the trunk instead?
 
CZMania!: Let's say I keep the hangun in a gun case, on the floor or the back seat. Is that "out of sight?" That's how I usually transport it. Should I put the case in the trunk instead?
Click to expand...

The hadgun could be on the seat next to you, covered with a t-shirt, and not be in "plain view". There is no requirement to place the case in your trunk.





Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

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

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 693, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.
Click to expand...
 
There is something you need to know about Houston and it's surrounding Harris County areas. It is considered a Safe Shelter Town/County and a few years ago the Mayor, I think it was Lee Brown, went on the news to say he is not abiding by the states right to carry in your vehicle law. The only way you can carry a handgun in your vehicle is if you have a Texas Cocealed Handgun License. If you are caught otherwise you will go to jail. I have yet to hear or read where it has been tried in a court of law.
 
I think it was Lee Brown, went on the news to say he is not abiding by the states right to carry in your vehicle law. The only way you can carry a handgun in your vehicle is if you have a Texas Cocealed Handgun License. If you are caught otherwise you will go to jail.
Click to expand...
I believe that was under the previous law. The new law is much stronger and I don't think it lends itself to such shenanigans by anti-gun politicians.
 
I live in Harris County and you can have a canceled handgun in your car. The key word is concealed it cannot be seen. This is a Texas state law since 2007.
 
Just took my renewal for CHL yesterday, instructor verified that it is perfectly legal to have a loaded hangun in your vehicle. It must not be visable from someone looking in. If you have it in a case it is perfectly legal. If a person can look into your car and see the actual gun than it is not legal, otherwise you are fine. The law changed here in 2007. It is stated above in a previous post.
 
As far as your concealed handgun become "illegal" when you pull it out to use it, that isn't true.

PC $9.04 THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

In other words: It's OK to use your gun to threaten someone whenever using deadly force is justified. If someone tries to force their way into your car you have the option of shooting them or just pulling your gun out and threatening them.
 
That section does not exactly make it "OK". If producing the weapon to create an impression DID constitute deady force, It would be a green light for use of deadly force in response. As it is, a guy holding a gun with a resolute look on his face may not be summarily shot down unless he demonstrates the immediate intention of unlawfully shooting somebody. He can still be charged with exposing the weapon to public view and probably some other things.

The law as currently written says that you have to already have the legal right to use deadly force before you expose the gun to public view. This is not particularly practical. It is likely that the "reasonable person" criteria would apply in real life- if a reasonable person would have been afraid that he was about to be the recipient of death or serious bodily injury and had pulled the gun, he would probably be legally justified.
 
The law as currently written says that you have to already have the legal right to use deadly force before you expose the gun to public view.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The law actually allows you to display a firearm when only force (not deadly force) is justified.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.04

"Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."​
 
Give credit where credit is due, It wasn't Out of Town Lee Brown, former Mayor. It was Ex Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal that made that statement.
 
as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Deadly force is that force known by the actor to be likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
46. 035 ..by license HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holders person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the
actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the

handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been (Already)
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
Under Chapter 9, force is justified only when the harm is imminent and immediate action is necessary to prevent it

Chapter 46 provides a defense to prosecution when the license holder exposes his handgun when Chapter 9-justifies the use of deadly force. [/I][/I]
Interpreted literally, this would seem to set up a quick draw scenario.
Defense to prosecution means that the licensee must prove that he did, in fact have justification for the action. The burdon of proof is on the accused- in this case the license holder who wishes to establish that he did, in fact have legal justification for using deadly force. The level of proof is based on "Beyond a reasonable doubt." If this section afforded an " Affirmative Defense to Prosecution", the canon of proof would be based on the "Preponderance of Evidence."
Only if the law read "Does not apply" would the burdon of proof rest with the prosecution.

This has come up in Instructor training sessions with the Commandant, on at least one occasion, saying that the section is "poorly worded."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top