im a bit confused about the HB 823 that took effect sept 1st.  it was hyped as being able to carry in your vehicle without a CHL and clearing up all the grey areas, but it seems just as confusing as the last option and looks like you will still be arrested with a pistol and no CHL, you just may have an easier jury trial to deal with.  on the other hand, the NRA claims you are legally allowed to carry without a chl in your vehicle.

also, im in san antonio, but ive heard that in houston the locals have refused to recognize this statute.

anybody have any thoughts on this?


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/Traveling.pdf

The law does not define travelling.  It creates a presumption of travelling.

Perviously, if you were found with a pistol in your car, you could be arrested, and it would be up to you to prove that you were travelling.  Basically, the only way for you to not be convicted would be for you to take the stand and testify in your own defense.

Now, assuming that you meet the prerequisites, you are presumed to be travelling.  This means that if you are arrested for having a pistol in your car, you don't have to testify to defend yourself at trial.  It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you aren't travelling.

Whether or not you are arrested if you are found with a pistol in your car is to some extent at the discretion of the police officers involved.  If he thinks that you aren't travelling (for example, if he asks where you are going and you respond "to the store to get eggs"), expect to be arrested.  

For more information, you can find about 5 more threads on this on the back pages of this forum.

Still it doesn't mean some dickhead cop won't take you to jail over it because they or the sherrif think "the law is confusing or unclear"

Quoted: The law does not define travelling.  It creates a presumption of travelling. Perviously, if you were found with a pistol in your car, you could be arrested, and it would be up to you to prove that you were travelling.  Basically, the only way for you to not be convicted would be for you to take the stand and testify in your own defense. Now, assuming that you meet the prerequisites, you are presumed to be travelling.  This means that if you are arrested for having a pistol in your car, you don't have to testify to defend yourself at trial.  It's up to the prosecutor to prove that you aren't travelling. Whether or not you are arrested if you are found with a pistol in your car is to some extent at the discretion of the police officers involved.  If he thinks that you aren't travelling (for example, if he asks where you are going and you respond "to the store to get eggs"), expect to be arrested.   For more information, you can find about 5 more threads on this on the back pages of this forum.

I think you need to go back and re-read this new law.

Traveling was not "defined"-- they just added that you are presumed to be traveling while in a MOTOR VEHICLE. The original definition still applies and was not changed.

It has nothing to do with if you are going to the store to get eggs or not-- it basically adds to the EXISTING law and "presumes" that you are also traveling if you have a handgun in your MOTOR VEHICLE, along with some other criteria such as not belonging to a gang, but nothing about going to the store for example...


eta: presume = take to be the case or to be true; accept without verification or proof;

thats what i am thinking, i thought the purpose of the law i the first place was because the old one was confusing and unclear.  

so basically it does not legalize the carrying of handguns in your vehicle sans CHL as the NRA claimed...it just means you are a little better off at your jury trial?

Quoted: thats what i am thinking, i thought the purpose of the law i the first place was because the old one was confusing and unclear.   so basically it does not legalize the carrying of handguns in your vehicle sans CHL as the NRA claimed...it just means you are a little better off at your jury trial?

Yes it does...

therein lies my problem.  i dont know what would constitute "travelling", i dont know what i would tell them.   obviously heading up the street to pick up some of the homies is out of the question, () but what about driving to work or across town to a store or something?

do i have to tell them im en route to austin every time?


getting a CHL would be much easier, but ive been trying to enlist in the military for some time and never got one because i was always ready to leave in a couple months.  well now i have finally passed all problems related to some physical waivers and am still in the same spot, and cant spend $200 and wait three months for a CHL.  

i live in an area of town that is les than stellar, and work in probably the worst possible part.  a handgun in my vehicle would be much appreciated while driving late at night.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=travelling


If it is not defined, it is common language - travelling means to go from one place to another....it does not imply having an overnight bag or going a minimum distance...

So travailing with it in your car, and in and out of your home.  It must stay in your car, unless you are going in or out of your residence. The firearm can not go into home depot , the bank, or the All-sups on the corner.  you can only carry it in your car?

Glad I have a CHL and do not have to worry about this one!

the original law is intact - you do not have to have it in your car, you could travel by walking, motorcycle, horse, buggy, etc - it is howver a "defense to prosecution" which means good luck with the liberal asshat DA's!!!