Failure of certain jurisdictions (such as Harris County) to acknolwedge the travelling exception when making arrests is why the legislature added Section 46.02 (a-1) to the Texas Penal Code. So I opted to describe that section as part of the travelling law, rather than go into the history of the travelling case law, which is convoluted and sometimes contradictory and doesn't help with brevity or clarity. As to travelling and carrying a handgun in a motor vehicle or motorcraft...

46.15(b) doesn't define travelling, but travelling was described in Ayesh v. State, 734 SW 2d 106, 108 (Tex: Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1987) as:

"Generally, the "traveling" exception to the prohibition on carrying weapons applies to persons on a journey which takes them some distance from their home in excess of 35 miles, or 40 miles, and the trip must typically be overnight. The exception has also been applied to those in the process of moving from one home to another. Deviation from the business of the journey will, however, terminate traveler status. For one may not carry a pistol idly, or merely for the sake of carrying it, or for some unlawful purpose." (internal citations omitted)

Ayesh is cited a lot in discussing travelling but the case law on travelling is contradictory enough that there is an entire law review article dedicated to the issue. But basically, you get to claim a pass from violations of Section 46.02 if you are "travelling." As a practical matter, Section 46.02 requires that a handgun in a motor vehicle not be in plain view. From a techinical perspective, if you are "travelling" as defined by the Texas court that you end up in front of, then you can avoid the requirements of 46.02(a-1)(1) by virtue of 46.15(b). Hopefully, you get pulled over by the officer who read that Baylor Law Review article on travelling and understands the various approaches and decides to give you the benefit of the travelling exception instead of arresting you for the clear violation of 46.02 (a-1)(1). As a general risk mitigation strategy though, I suggest that keeping the handgun concealed and not in plain view in the motor vehicle is the better strategy.

In case it wasn't apparent to everyone, let me make it clear that I summarized the case quite a bit and there are a lot of details that I did not include from that case in my one sentence summary that would be legally significant . If you looked at the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, you would probably have to give him the immediately necessary argument in that case, which the court did.

Thank you. Accuracy is important.

To keep things interesting, my understanding if one does NOT have a CHL, they are still allowed to conceal carry a handgun while riding their motorcycle. If they stop to get gas, they must stay ON the bike or they lose that protection, correct? What if they kept a part of their body on the bike (like hand) to make the claim they are still attached to the motor vehicle? I'm also curious if anybody knows of a case where a law abiding biker without a CHL ,but carrying concealed, has ever had any problems with LEO when accidentally displaying?


On a side note, I was going home from a gunshow years ago and the family wanted to meet for a movie so I stopped in. I didn't want to leave my guns on the bike so I Mexican carried 3/4 inside, not realizing my shirt had pushed back to reveal my inventory - glad the soccer moms didn't call 911. Still not as bad as my 6 year old pulling up my shirt at the checkout line in SAMs and start screaming "HE'S GOT A GUN, HE's GOT A GUN!!!"

Agreed. I'm just curious how LEOs would interpret the law with nonCHL's. I can see an 18 year old using these rules to their advantage since not allowed to obtain CHL but legal to carry under the motor vehicle law.

SO, if LEO demands a biker to get off their bike (while carrying concealed without CHL), can LEO then claim the biker is in violation or would that be a defense?

Not correct when PI is involved, as one example. Years ago TABC went after DFW bars where the agents would walk inside, ask a patron to go outside with them, and the waiting LEOs would arrest for public intoxication (they were safe as long as they stayed but they followed orders). This tactic upset a number of folks which resulted in a DMN expose, pressure on the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, and they backed down (or that was what was told). Keep in mind, TABC was doing this at HOTEL bars where the assumption patrons would walk back to their rooms...

Another example would involve DART officers pulling over a driver in the HOV lane and when they exited (per flashing lights) they would then be ticketed for crossing double white lines.

I'm sure there are other examples SO I'm not going to follow LEO orders unless I am instructed beforehand I am GTG.

Complete bullshit. A bar is a public place and a peace officer can arrest for public intoxication inside a bar just as lawfully as outside. And the Chamber of Commerce has zero influence on LE.

This was per the DMN article. It was at the time Dallas was HURTING for convention business while other cities around the metroplex were growing their conventions. It was stated companies/associations were getting wind of this activity and threatened NOT to have their conventions in Dallas. Folks at Dallas (I assume the Chamber of Commerce was included but it might have gone up to Ron Kirk) got involved, discussions were made with leadership of TABC and this stopped. Or that was presented by DMN.

The viewpoint of the writer and witnesses were that these people were not visibly drunk and minding their own business but TABC leadership had started this tactic to be proactice on DUIs. Having a story about an out-of-towner sitting in hotel bar, asked to go outside, get arrested, sit in jail, miss his job assignment the next day, getting fired, made some people upset. Also, if LEO can arrest for PI, why do I not hear about this happening more often? I'm not a regular bar patron so I honestly don't know the practice but find it odd for LEO to just start visiting bars and popping people without any complaints from other patrons/mgmt.

Maybe that explains all the signage I recently saw on a bar door that said PRIVATE on at least 5 sheets of paper.

I do not know what you read, but a person can be arrested inside a bar for PI. I have done it, and obtained convictions.



Whatever.

Being served to an intoxicated state is illegal too, as well as continuing to serve them after they are drunk.

When you made these arrests for PI, were they the result of proactive raids or reactive calls for disturbances? I ask because why don't PDs park stand outside bars and arrest for PI? I found it interesting last weekend in downtown FW to see a long line of taxi's waiting for all the drunks to come out of a bar.

You make many assumptions not based in fact.

Since you asked, some PI arrests were a result of neither. A LEO has a right, under the TABC laws, to inspect a licenee anytime. We looked for violations by the licensee as well as PI, underage drinkers, drug use, and a number of other things.

Your lack of knowledge or understanding of police operations does not make the cops evil, as you suggest. Cops don't need to use entrapment to have more than enough to do.