Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/28/2005 6:46:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/28/2005 6:55:12 PM EDT by fundummy]
It appears Texans will be able to legally carry handguns ( concealed ) in their vehicles beginning 1 September 2005.

Updates are on www.packing.org

--------------------------- Car/Gun law summary

Date updated: Tuesday, July 5, 2005

See Peaceable Journey Section.

Effective 9/1/05

§46.15 NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and § 46.03 do not apply to: (3) People traveling;

§46.15 (i)


(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.

Admin Note: Effective 9/1/05 Anyone who can legally possess a firearm can carry it inside a motor vehicle. The firearm can be loaded and must be concealed. If it is in view it is a violation of the law.

ETA: ... sorry about the dupes and re-hash trash... I dont " live " on ARFCOM...
but wanted to make sure you were aware of the good news
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 6:49:12 PM EDT
This has been covered quite a bit on this forum, but it IS nice to know we're getting there.....it's nice to know that the average citizen can legally protect themselves IF they choose to.

Open carry will be next on the list.

HH
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 6:50:34 PM EDT
Oh no, its going to be like the wild west!
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 6:52:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zer04evr:
Oh no, its going to be like the wild west!


No, but a little bit closer to New Mexico. Keep trying guys, you'll get there someday.
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 6:53:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/28/2005 7:40:50 PM EDT by mikejohnson]
Correction: It has always been legal to carry a handgun while travelling, but the prosecutors and judges have twisted and contorted the definition to mean "overnight stay, change of clothes, three counties, etc" from the original word travelling which has a common definiton but not spelled out in the law (because it is a common word)- "to go from one place to another". The original is still there, and it is a valid defense, however the addition to the law undoes all of the twisting of the definitions when travelling by "private motor vehicle".
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 6:57:19 PM EDT

Texans start packin' handguns in POV's in September...



Oh yeah? In October, Florida will have our very own "Wild West" in every street. So there!
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 7:04:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 44Punk:

Originally Posted By zer04evr:
Oh no, its going to be like the wild west!


No, but a little bit closer to New Mexico. Keep trying guys, you'll get there someday.



Nah....we like it just fine over here, 44!



HH
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 7:13:04 PM EDT
These silly laws and changes of laws are easy to screw up.
And the penalties for misunderstanding are way out of line.

Texans, pay attention to mikejohnson's correction. It is a
subtle correction, but may make a BIG difference to you
someday.

DanM
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 7:18:51 PM EDT
When I first moved to west TX, a local told me that there was a fued going on between TX and NM. The New Mexicans (not to be confused with plain Mexicans), would throw grenades accross the border. The Texans would retaliate by pulling the pins and throwing the grenades back.

Link Posted: 7/28/2005 7:26:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/28/2005 7:28:50 PM EDT by mikejohnson]


(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.



Is this an AND situation or an OR situtation? Can I just apply #5?


(oh yeah, and just a reminder, there are pretty much NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEAR AND CARRY or transportation of LONG GUNS in Texas!)
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 7:34:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DanM:
These silly laws and changes of laws are easy to screw up.
And the penalties for misunderstanding are way out of line.

Texans, pay attention to mikejohnson's correction. It is a
subtle correction, but may make a BIG difference to you
someday.

DanM



YUP !! Clear ASS GLASS ...

Law abiding taxpayer types can carry loaded / concealed / handguns ( inside their vehicle ) without a license. NO MORE misintrepretaion by legal definition.

Changing a spare tire with your pocket rocket in your hip pocket is outside the law ( without a CHL) besides the plumbers butt crack ( public obscenity ).. ahahhah
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 9:54:39 PM EDT
Good news...why is it that the cynic in me worries that once/if I start driving with a .45 in the glove box, I'll just cry a whole lot more when my car is stolen when I'm in the mall or whatever.

Seriously, how many of you that don't already have a gun in your car will start once September rolls around?
Link Posted: 7/28/2005 10:00:10 PM EDT
My question is how this plays out for CHL holders. So if I left my permit at home, but I am in my own car and my Sig is under the seat, am I in the clear? From the CHL perspective I am not, because I am carrying concealed without my permit. But, I am assuming I am carrying concealed under the authority of the travelling provision so that covers me.

What about the requirement to inform law enforcement? That covers those carrying concealed under the authority of a CHL, but there is nothing about that in this whole travelling thing. So you will have some
people informing, and failure to inform is a crime, and some people not informing and they are OK.

It's still a mess, but it's progress.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 4:58:59 AM EDT
Gentlemen and ladies,

This DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN CARRY A HANDGUN IN YOUR CAR IN TEXAS without a CHL!

It does not legalize carry on a routine basis without a chl.

IS the law that UNCLEAR?

What this means is that if ssomeone is traveling, they can carry a handgun and the state will have to overcome the presumption.

Overcoming the presumption of travelling is relatively easy to do if the defednat was running to the grocery store, getting gas, taking the kids to school, going to or from work, etc., and the defnednat was stopped and caught with a.45 in the glvoebox.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:04:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 5:20:20 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
Gentlemen and ladies,

This DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN CARRY A HANDGUN IN YOUR CAR IN TEXAS without a CHL!

It does not legalize carry on a routine basis without a chl.

IS the law that UNCLEAR?

What this means is that if ssomeone is traveling, they can carry a handgun and the state will have to overcome the presumption.

Overcoming the presumption of travelling is relatively easy to do if the defednat was running to the grocery store, getting gas, taking the kids to school, going to or from work, etc., and the defnednat was stopped and caught with a.45 in the glvoebox.




Yes apparantly it is that unclear. Why is going to the grocery store not "travelling" if travelling is
defined as :

(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.

Could you perhaps explain it to us instead of just calling us all idiots?

We are not lawyers, but it seems to be written very clearly.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:06:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fundummy:
It appears Texans will be able to legally carry handguns ( concealed ) in their vehicles beginning 1 September 2005.

Updates are on www.packing.org

--------------------------- Car/Gun law summary

Date updated: Tuesday, July 5, 2005

See Peaceable Journey Section.

Effective 9/1/05

§46.15 NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and § 46.03 do not apply to: (3) People traveling;

§46.15 (i)


(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.

Admin Note: Effective 9/1/05 Anyone who can legally possess a firearm can carry it inside a motor vehicle. The firearm can be loaded and must be concealed. If it is in view it is a violation of the law.

ETA: ... sorry about the dupes and re-hash trash... I dont " live " on ARFCOM...
but wanted to make sure you were aware of the good news



So now every traffic stop will come with a complimentary "gang related" citation.
(I hope not. It is Texas, afterall. But nothing really surprises me anymore)
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 5:13:48 AM EDT
SC-Texas, ("We are honored by your presence.")

I don't quite understand what distinction you're trying to make.

The new law does allow a person to carry and concealed handgun "in a private motor vehicle" without a CHL. Period.

Can you elaborate a bit more on your point above?

Thanks,
CMOS

Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:38:13 AM EDT
Sorry to harp on this, and repeat post. But understanding this
subtle change is very important. And if it is I that am misunderstanding
I sure would like to know that. Even though I have the CHL.

This law changed NOTHING except the definition of traveling. Right?

So, no CHL, .45 in the glovebox, depending on the LEO and you, you
may still take a ride downtown. The difference will be, under the old
law you would have to prove you were "traveling" and under the new
law the state must prove you were "not traveling". Right?

In either case, new law or old, you may end up in court and you may
end up making the mortgage and Mercedes payments for your
lawyer. Right?

DanM (my answer is three "yes"s).
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:46:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 6:47:54 AM EDT by DoctorNo]
Yes, the new definition of travelling is a "DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION". What it really means is, that unless you're a scumbag and the cops what to mess with you, they're not going to hook you up, because the DA will not prosecute.

FYI - the term "criminal street gang" is defined as follows:
"Criminal street gang" means three or more persons
having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable
leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the
commission of criminal activities.

I think what the lawyer was trying to say in their subtle lawyer speak is that the change in the law does not legalize (it is not an EXCEPTION to carrying a handgun concealed in a vehicle without a license) but instead re-defines the term 'travelling' to make the DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION more clear.

If you don't have your CHL and you have a gun in the car, you're AOK, IMO. That's like not having a CHL when you're carrying on your own land or in your own place of business. You don't need one in the first place!

Yes, you can legally carry a weapon in your vehicle ANY TIME you driving in your vehicle.

KICK ASS!

Now we just need to work on open carry...

Doc
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 6:50:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 6:54:03 AM EDT by TexasSIG]
Well, that's why it is confusing. Yes, all it did was change the definition of travelling.

But, it seems at least, that if travelling makes Sections 46.02 and 46.03 not apply,
and travelling means the 5 things listed, that it seems any time you are in your
own vehicle, you are not subject to these restrictions.

What is missing here?

Sure it's a defense to prosecution, but since there is no duty to inform an LEO
under the travelling circumstance, no one will ever know the gun is there.

So I am not sure why, in practical terms, this is not what we think it is.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:00:40 AM EDT
SC, please come back and finish explaining. I have a CHL, so I am not so worried, but would love to know what you mean.

And yes, the law is clear as mud, now that you shook up the jar.

So, if you can, please educate us so we don't have to find out the hard way.

Nothing in the post is in anyway meant to be calling you out or arguing with you. It is only a request for more information. Of the two of us, only one has been to law school. It ain't me.

TXL
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:02:24 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:03:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:
SC, please come back and finish explaining. I have a CHL, so I am not so worried, but would love to know what you mean.

And yes, the law is clear as mud, now that you shook up the jar.

So, if you can, please educate us so we don't have to find out the hard way.

Nothing in the post is in anyway meant to be calling you out or arguing with you. It is only a request for more information. Of the two of us, only one has been to law school. It ain't me.

TXL




+1
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:11:21 AM EDT
and all this time, I thought TX was already a free state.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:13:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
and all this time, I thought TX was already a free state.


heh, virginia's gun laws kick the shit outta texas's!
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:24:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcorps1775:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
and all this time, I thought TX was already a free state.


heh, virginia's gun laws kick the shit outta texas's!



Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:31:49 AM EDT
Texas has CCW reciprocity with many states, and for those states, this law matters not.

Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:47:32 AM EDT
There's a discussion of the effects of the bill here:

Texas CHL forum
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 7:56:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 8:06:56 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By R_S:
There's a discussion of the effects of the bill here:

Texas CHL forum



That discussion also seems to go against what SC_Texas is saying. So, it is certainly not clear.


The argument that travelling can be debated in court doesn't hold water it seems because
the definition of travelling is clearly defined in the statutes. It is not up to interpretation
of what travelling means.

If a non CHL holder is on the way home from the grocery store, in his own car, even if the store
is a block away from his house, he is travelling by statutory definition. So, how could a prosecutor
instruct a jury to disregard that and find that the person was not travelling because he had
perishable food in the car? As long as the 5 criteria are met, you are travelling, by statutory
definition. It doesn't mention distance at all.

So in practical terms, please explain why this does NOT mean non CHLs can carry any time
they are in their personal vehicle and meet the other 4 criteria for travelling?


My question though is for a CHL holder that does not have his permit with him,
or even has that permit suspended for some reason.

Is that person protected as well under the travelling definition, regardless
of CHL status?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 8:07:07 AM EDT
I realy don't want to look up the code, but my understanding is that you can still get arrested (if the cop is being a jerk) but now when it goes to court there is a clearer definition of traveling. Before the "definition" involved a ton of case law and was somewhat open to interpretation by liberal courts.

Think the majic word used to be "Affirmative Defence" but not sure. It is against the law to have the gun in your vehilce, but there is an affirmative defence while traveling.

Basically the cop has a law, and does not have to search for excuses on why something otherwise illegal could be allowable.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 8:11:19 AM EDT
On the Texas CHL Forum, Charles is a lawyer, and I believe he is correct on this matter.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 8:16:43 AM EDT

If a non CHL holder is on the way home from the grocery store, in his own car, even if the store
is a block away from his house, he is travelling by statutory definition.




Exactly. If you're in your vehicle, you're cool.

CMOS
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 8:19:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By R_S:
On the Texas CHL Forum, Charles is a lawyer, and I believe he is correct on this matter.



So does the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association, they agree as well, which
is why I am interested in what SC_Texas thinks about it, because he is
respected on this board very much regarding these things and I'd love
to hear his take on it.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:11:07 AM EDT
Just got baqck from court. Sorry to post and run and especially to post in my oh so PC manner.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:17:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
Just got baqck from court. Sorry to post and run and especially to post in my oh so PC manner.





Well, we will be anxiously waiting for your insight.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:34:41 AM EDT

(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.



Look at the law. Ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Does the law define travelling?
NO.

2. Does the law say it changes the definition of traqveling?
NO

3. What does the law do?
ANSWER: it creates a PRESUMPTION of travelling if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are set forth in the quoted section above.

4. Why does the law refer to subsection (b)(3)?
ANSWER: becasue that is the part of the statute that this section modifies. In this case, (b)(3) (if I remember correctly) states that UCW doesn't allply if a person is traveling.

5. If the statue does not define travelling, where is the definition found?
ANSWER: in the case law that has been developed over the past 180 years tha the law has been a part of Texas law.


6. Why doesn't this allow me to carry a gun in my car if I am presumed to be travelling?
ANSWER: because, the law says two IMPORTANT THINGS
A. It is a defense to prosecution for UCW if you are travelling.
B. the new law shifts the burden of proof tfrom the defendant to the prosecution.
WTF does shifts the Burden of Proof mean?
ANSWER: This means that in the past- the defnendant, AT TRIAL, had to present evidence to the Jury that he was travelling, then the jury would get an instruction for its deliberations- "was the defendnat travelling" or something similar.

Under the new law, the prosectuion must present evidence that the defendant was not travelling in order to get that instruction taken off the jury's deliberation page. If the prosecution presents evidence that the defendant was not travelling, then the burden of proof shifts back tot he defendant to present evidnece that he was indded travelling and that he should get that jury instruction.

ANSWER to #6: The law itself is not changed,. YOU CANNOT carry a handgun in your car without a CHL without running afoul of a UCW charge.

If you get charged with UCW, you will still have to meet the definition of travelling to be entitled to that defense. The difference comes with what the prosecution has to present to the jury i.e. evidence that you did not meet the definition of travelling

Which goes back to my original post: You are not travelling if you are taking the kids to/from school, going shopping or travelling to and from work (even if you cross 7 county lines).

I don;t think I have this wrong.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:38:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 11:41:29 AM EDT by TexasSIG]
SC_Texas. I understand that, but what about the changes to the presumption statues:


(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.



TSRA and NRA claim that this piece is what kills the historical case law, in that those old
cases cannot be used.

IANAL certainly, but this is how TSRA and the NRA are both explaining it, that although what you say
is correct, in practice a prosecutor cannot change the presumption of travelling if
the 5 conditions are met, no matter how much he wants to or whether case precedent has
done so.

For those trying to follow this unholy mess, the whole horrible thing is here

HB823
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:41:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 12:14:39 PM EDT by sharky30]
you can't carry in your car now?
I can
or is this allowing non-CHL people to carry concealed in a car but CHL people have been able to all along?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:56:07 AM EDT
Quick answer then I have to get some documents done before the day ends:

1. whether or not the old case law is tossed, the jury is going to define travelling for the defendnat in that case.

2. If the jury belienves that travelling includes daily commutes to and from work, then they will find the defendant not guilty.

3. The case law is develioped when juries find people guilty and they appeal and ask the higher courts to define travelling. In that case, the courts will refer tot he 180 or so years of case law defining travelling.



(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

OK, again, this is exactly what I said above: the travelling instruction will be given to the jury unless the prosecution presents facts that clearly demonstrate that the defendant was not travelling. Again, where will the court look for a definition of travelling? Stare deciesis.

Is going to and from the grocvery store travelling? How about a daily work commute?



(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;

OK, back to what will a jury define the term travelling to mean? Daily shopping trips probably will not be termned trvelling.


(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;

Again, the state must show that the defendant was not travelling. Ladies and gentlemn of the jury, the defendant commuted to and from work on this route everyday. Is that how y'all define travelling? OR Ladies and gentlement, the defendnat would like you to beleive that a shopping trip to the local piggly wiggly is travelling. Do you think you are taking a trip when you go grocery shopping?


(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

Back to the above answers. The elements of UCW are that you hand a pistol in your car and didn't have a CHL and, further, you were not travelling or engaged in one of the other exceptions to UCW.


(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.

That doesn't change anything either, it merely defines the mechanical operation of a jury's interpretation of the facts. If the jury is positive that a trip to the mall isn't travelling, then they do not have to consider the presumed fact (travelling in theis case) to exist. My interpretation: In this case, if the jury thinks, or has some reasonable doubt as to whether a daily work commute meets the definition of travelling or that a trip tot hte mall meets that definition, then defendant walks.

However, how many juries are going to buy that? Not many.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:58:58 AM EDT
And this is my $.25 on the matter. There a people on this board who are a lot brighter than I am and I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise.

Just show me where my read of the law is wrong.

BUT, if anyone is considering this a substitutute for a CHL, please make sure you wnat to risk the costs and pentalties of a trial to prove you are right.

A CHL is much cheaper.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 11:59:45 AM EDT
Well it's certainly beyond me. I'm surprised the TSRA and NRA are touting it as a
right to carry in the car.

Now, given what you have said, and we'll wait patiently for you to have time.

In reality, do you see DA's advising to arrest or do you think they will advise
departments to let it slide, in cases where no other crime is being committed,
thereby making it a right to carry anyway. Maybe that is what the organizations
are counting on, that no DA will want to fool with it?

Thanks for your input!!

Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:05:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 12:06:49 PM EDT by cobrasks]
That's one thing I really like about my home state of Pennsylvania ,
our gun laws are some of the best in the country.

You walk in to the Sheriffs office ,fill out a form ,show them your PA
Driver's License ,wait 5 minutes for the background check,
and your clear to carry !

For $20 ,they give you a laminated photo ID .

Non of this wear you can and can't carry crap !

They give you a SMALL list of places you can't carry.

I think they are all off limits due to federal laws.

Schools ,courthouses,jails,voting areas,and the Post Office.

You can carry a concealed handgun with a 50 round drum on it
while driving your vehicle if you want !

The PA state constitution is very clear about INDIVIDUALS having
the RIGHT to own and bear arms for the defense of themselves or the state.

I wish the 2nd Amendment was stated in a way that could not be
perverted to mean something it wasn't intended to .
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:18:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 12:19:03 PM EDT by mousehunter]
Just my two cents. I think this law is a good thing, but just do not think it is a slam dunk. I will keep my permit updated.

Texas Law allows for the open cary of rifles. That said, I am not about to put my gun rack back in my truck. 1) if a loe is anti gun, he will find something else to pull me over for. 2) I am increasing the risk of my truck being broke into. 3) I am increasing the risk that after the truck is broken into I will be hit with HUGE civil suites when the stolen gun is used in a crime.

The analogy goes for the pistol as well. I would much rather have it concealed on me legally, than left under the seat of the vehicle and stolen. Likewise, I am pretty sure that even when the traveling exception applied, the places you could legaly be was more restrictive than with chl. (case in point - I am pretty sure I can pick up my kids in the school parking lot with the chl - even though there is a pistol in my car. School building are off limits, but not the parking lot. Without a chl, I am violating the law when I go on the parking lot with a firearm (including a rifle, which would otherwise be legal to have in the car).

The old law was terrible, this should help. That said, I don't want to rely on it.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoctorNo:
Yes, the new definition of travelling is a "DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION".



NO it is not. Traveling is NON-APPLICABLE.

The law does not apply to you, just like 46.15 says UCW does not apply to an Peace Officer.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:41:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RenegadeX:

Originally Posted By DoctorNo:
Yes, the new definition of travelling is a "DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION".



NO it is not. Traveling is NON-APPLICABLE.

The law does not apply to you, just like 46.15 says UCW does not apply to an Peace Officer.



Well not according to our resident attorney. Im more confused than when I started
reading this mess. I have a CHL so I don't care too much, but my wife
might want to throw her LadySmith in the glove box now and then, and she
hasn't had time to go through the course yet.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:44:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

My question though is for a CHL holder that does not have his permit with him,
or even has that permit suspended for some reason.

Is that person protected as well under the travelling definition, regardless
of CHL status?



Yes. He is protected under 46.15, assuming his possession is still lawful in spite of a suspended CHL. There is nothing wrong with having more than 1 protection under 46.15. Take a Peace Officer on the way to the range on the other side of the state who has a CHL. He is protected from UCW under 46.15 (A)1, 46.15 (B)3,4,6.
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:45:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 12:56:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By zer04evr:
Oh no, its going to be like the wild west!



NOOOoooo Stop it. For the Safety of THE CHILDREN!
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 1:03:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2005 1:07:26 PM EDT by MuRDoC]

Originally Posted By DVDTracker:

(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.



Trying to understand that makes my head hurt.



I translated it for you

Yall liss'n hyar.
(b) When this hyar code o' t'other penal law establishes a presumpshun in favo' of th' defendant wif respeck ta enny fack, it has th' follerin cornsequences:
(1) eff'n thar is good 'nuff evidence of th' facks thet give rise ta th' presumpshun, th' issue of th' exissence of the presoomd fack muss be submitted ta th' jury unless th' court is satisfied thet th' evidence as a whole clearly precludes a findin beyon' a reasonable doubt of th' presoomd fack; an'
(2) eff'n th' exissence of th' presoomd fack is submitted ta th' jury, th' court shall charge th' jury, in terms of the presumpshun, thet:
(A) th' presumpshun applies unless th' state proves beyon' a reasonable doubt thet th' facks givin rise ta the presumpshun does not exist;
(B) eff'n th' state fails ta prove beyon' a reasonable doubt thet th' facks givin rise ta th' presumpshun do not exist, th' jury muss fin' thet th' presoomd fack exists;
(C) even though th' jury may fin' thet the presoomd fack does not exist, th' state muss prove beyon' a reasonable doubt etch of th' elements of th' offense charged; an'
(D) eff'n th' jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether th' presoomd fack exists, th' presumpshun applies an' the jury muss cornsider th' presoomd fack ta exist. Ya reckon?
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 1:04:55 PM EDT
ok the redneck translator didn't make it easier to understand, or funny
Link Posted: 7/29/2005 1:20:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
ok the redneck translator didn't make it easier to understand, or funny



Hell it made it more understandable. Couldn't have made it any less
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top