Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/22/2006 7:42:55 PM EDT
What are the specifics on carrying a handgun in your truck without a ccl. I was told anyone that is not a felon could carry now.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:14:27 PM EDT
That is still a matter of some debate.

Anyone who can legally own a handgun in Texas can carry one in their vehicle while they are traveling...or I should say that it is an affirmative defense to prosecution. There was a bill which was passed last September which was supposed to define traveling as going from point A to point B. Point A could have been your house and point B could have been the store on the corner. The intention of the legislature was to prevent police from arresting law abiding citizens who were carrying handguns in their vehicles without a CHL, because the law prevented them from being prosecuted for it.

However, there is some dispute over what the law actually does. If you listen to the legislator who wrote and sponsored the bill then the law allows anyone who can legally own a handgun to carry a loaded handgun in their vehicle as long as they are not a member of a street gang and not involved in any other criminal activity other than a minor traffic infraction. If you listen to the CHL instructors and some of the LEOs in the state then it doesn't do dick diddley.

Basically, the hang up is over the term traveling. Does traveling mean going from point A to point B? Does traveling mean crossing county lines? Does traveling mean going someplace and spending the night? The courts in Texas have half a dozen different interpretations of the law as it is. There will probably be another interpretation required to resolve the issue once and for all, possibly even from the state supreme court.

Bottom line, if an asshole cop wanted to lock you up and an asshole DA wanted to grind you in court they could and you're going to have to shell out some coin to defend yourself.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:15:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:32:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html



The relevant statute on that site doesn't appear to be up to date.

46.15 does not reflect the changes enacted by HB 823 which was passed last year and took effect on 9/1/05. There is now a subsection (i) attached to 46.15 which defines traveling.

You can find the text of the bill here

However, some prosecutors have said that they will continue to prosecute unlicensed carriers. Remember, this is only an affirmative defense...they can still arrest you and file charges.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:57:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
That is still a matter of some debate.

Anyone who can legally own a handgun in Texas can carry one in their vehicle while they are traveling...or I should say that it is an affirmative defense to prosecution. There was a bill which was passed last September which was supposed to define traveling as going from point A to point B. Point A could have been your house and point B could have been the store on the corner. The intention of the legislature was to prevent police from arresting law abiding citizens who were carrying handguns in their vehicles without a CHL, because the law prevented them from being prosecuted for it.

However, there is some dispute over what the law actually does. If you listen to the legislator who wrote and sponsored the bill then the law allows anyone who can legally own a handgun to carry a loaded handgun in their vehicle as long as they are not a member of a street gang and not involved in any other criminal activity other than a minor traffic infraction. If you listen to the CHL instructors and some of the LEOs in the state then it doesn't do dick diddley.

Basically, the hang up is over the term traveling. Does traveling mean going from point A to point B? Does traveling mean crossing county lines? Does traveling mean going someplace and spending the night? The courts in Texas have half a dozen different interpretations of the law as it is. There will probably be another interpretation required to resolve the issue once and for all, possibly even from the state supreme court.

Bottom line, if an asshole cop wanted to lock you up and an asshole DA wanted to grind you in court they could and you're going to have to shell out some coin to defend yourself.



NO, NO, NO. It is not a "defense to prosecution" A person who is traveling does not have the Unlawful Carrying Weapons law applicable to them. Period.

Texas Law does not define traveling. What the law did was create a "presumption" of traveling that has 5 requirements. If you meet those 5 requirements, then you ARE traveling and UCW does not apply to you.

It has nothing to do with the distance traveled or time spent traveling.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:04:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html



The relevant statute on that site doesn't appear to be up to date.

46.15 does not reflect the changes enacted by HB 823 which was passed last year and took effect on 9/1/05. There is now a subsection (i) attached to 46.15 which defines traveling.

You can find the text of the bill here

However, some prosecutors have said that they will continue to prosecute unlicensed carriers. Remember, this is only an affirmative defense...they can still arrest you and file charges.



Again, it does NOT define traveling. It creates a presumption with 5 requirements. If you meet those 5, you are presumed to be traveling, which makes UCW non-applicable. It is not a definition. If it was a definition, then you would only be traveling if you met that definition.

It also is NOT an affirmative defense, it is a non-applicability.

SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(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.



Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:11:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:24:51 PM EDT by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html



The relevant statute on that site doesn't appear to be up to date.

46.15 does not reflect the changes enacted by HB 823 which was passed last year and took effect on 9/1/05. There is now a subsection (i) attached to 46.15 which defines traveling.

You can find the text of the bill here

However, some prosecutors have said that they will continue to prosecute unlicensed carriers. Remember, this is only an affirmative defense...they can still arrest you and file charges.



Again, it does NOT define traveling. It creates a presumption with 5 requirements. If you meet those 5, you are presumed to be traveling, which makes UCW non-applicable. It is not a definition. If it was a definition, then you would only be traveling if you met that definition.

It also is NOT an affirmative defense, it is a non-applicability.

SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(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.






So then it's 100% legal...no if's, and's or but's...regardless of your CHL status, regardless of where you are going and regardless of for how long...it is completely legal for an unlicensed person to carry a loaded hangun in their vehicle without a CHL as long as they can legally own the gun, aren't a member of a gang, aren't displaying the gun in plain view and aren't engaged in another criminal activity???

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I've had multiple discussions with people ranging from cops to CHL instructors average joes and everyone has a different take on the law.

I know that the Dallas PD's position is that if you have a loaded handgun in the passenger compartment of your car and you get stopped without a CHL then you're going for a ride.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:38:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So then it's 100% legal...no if's, and's or but's...regardless of your CHL status, regardless of where you are going and regardless of for how long...it is completely legal for an unlicensed person to carry a loaded hangun in their vehicle without a CHL as long as they can legally own the gun, aren't a member of a gang, aren't displaying the gun in plain view and aren't engaged in another criminal activity???

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I've had multiple discussions with people ranging from cops to CHL instructors average joes and everyone has a different take on the law.

I know that the Dallas PD's position is that if you have a loaded handgun in the passenger compartment of your car and you get stopped without a CHL then you're going for a ride.



Yep its legal.

Obviously thought some police officers and some DAs choose to remain ignorant on the issue.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:43:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Texashillbilly:
What are the specifics on carrying a handgun in your truck without a ccl. I was told anyone that is not a felon could carry now.



You have been able to carry a gun while traveling for a long time. There just was no definition for traveling. It was left up to local prosecutors and a hodge podge of appeals court cases to determine what was "traveling".

Under the recently passed law, you are "presumed" to be traveling if you meet the five criteria set out by the new law. They are as follows:

(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.


If you meet those five listed presumptions, you are traveling.

Can an officer arrest you? Sure he can but if you meet the five things listed in the new law, the DA will not be able to prove the case. The law seems fairly easy to understand to me. If you read the defintion of Presumption in the Penal Code it is simple to see that the DA has to prove that at least one of the five things exist before you can be convicted of carrying the pistol. Such as, if you are committing another crime, like having dope in your car, then you can also be charged with the pistol. If the DA can prove you are the member of a criminal street gang, you can be charged with the pistol, etc.

Traveling does not mean you can get out of the vehicle with the pistol and start carrying it around unless you have the CHL. As long as the pistol stays in the vehicle, you are likely okay.

A key part of the definition of Presumtion is:

(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;

If the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the presumption does not exist, the jury must find that the presumed facts exist, meaning you did not break the law. I think it would be a crazy DA to take a case to court knowing that he has no case. The courts over backlogged enough to start taking cases that they know they cannot win but I am sure someone will try it. I expect it might come from Harris County. I hope that Chuck Rosenthal will hurry up and file one of those losing cases so we can get an appeals court ruling and put all the speculation to rest.

For my two cents and as an officer, if I stop you and you have complied with the five listed presumptions, then you can be on your way. All of that of course, is just my opinion. Seek legal counsel for further explanation of the new law.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:49:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OFFascist:

Yep its legal.

Obviously thought some police officers and some DAs choose to remain ignorant on the issue.



I agree completely. What is it in the law that they are not reading? I think it is just some people, mostly DA's and police chiefs, that don't like the new law and want to wish it away by saying they will arrest everyone. Seems like a pretty stupid stance to take but there are some stupid people in criminal justice.

If I had any questions about the five presumptions, I might make an arrest also. Without something that I can articulate about why I think the presumptions don't exist, I won't make the arrest.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 1:18:04 AM EDT
why not just get a chl?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:52:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
why not just get a chl?



Agreed, everyone that can get a CHL should get a CHL. Right now only about 1% of Texans have a CHL. If that number increased to 15 or 20%, there is no way our "elected representatives" would mess with our rights.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:00:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
why not just get a chl?




I swear I'd like to pool some money and rent a billboard for a few weeks that advertises the CHL. Lots of folks don't even know it's available.

CMOS
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:24:05 AM EDT
I had one until I screwed up (DWI) I have a year and a half til I can get it again.Two officer buddies here told me about I could still carry in my truck.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 6:59:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:
www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html



The relevant statute on that site doesn't appear to be up to date.

46.15 does not reflect the changes enacted by HB 823 which was passed last year and took effect on 9/1/05. There is now a subsection (i) attached to 46.15 which defines traveling.

You can find the text of the bill here

However, some prosecutors have said that they will continue to prosecute unlicensed carriers. Remember, this is only an affirmative defense...they can still arrest you and file charges.



Again, it does NOT define traveling. It creates a presumption with 5 requirements. If you meet those 5, you are presumed to be traveling, which makes UCW non-applicable. It is not a definition. If it was a definition, then you would only be traveling if you met that definition.

It also is NOT an affirmative defense, it is a non-applicability.

SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(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.






So then it's 100% legal...no if's, and's or but's...regardless of your CHL status, regardless of where you are going and regardless of for how long...it is completely legal for an unlicensed person to carry a loaded hangun in their vehicle without a CHL as long as they can legally own the gun, aren't a member of a gang, aren't displaying the gun in plain view and aren't engaged in another criminal activity???

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I've had multiple discussions with people ranging from cops to CHL instructors average joes and everyone has a different take on the law.

I know that the Dallas PD's position is that if you have a loaded handgun in the passenger compartment of your car and you get stopped without a CHL then you're going for a ride.



All I can do is show you the law.....

As far as DPD, you better tell the DPD officers I know and have spoken to personally. They are fully aware of the new presumption and intend to follow the law. If you are not acting like a fool, you will be fine if you are in compliance
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:06:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 7:07:19 AM EDT by MauserMark]

Originally Posted By CMOS:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
why not just get a chl?




I swear I'd like to pool some money and rent a billboard for a few weeks that advertises the CHL. Lots of folks don't even know it's available.

CMOS



Huge +1!

a lot of engineering geeks I graduated with were oblivious to this license and also couldn't believe you can travel around with a rifle in your car!

or if they had heard of the license they tried to explain to me that this was what was REQUIRED to actually purchase a handgun, and that was the reason they never want to own one.

sad ignorant times.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 7:36:53 AM EDT
Just tell them you are going to the range.

And you like to keep it under your seat......
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 12:00:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I know that the Dallas PD's position is that if you have a loaded handgun in the passenger compartment of your car and you get stopped without a CHL then you're going for a ride.



Says who?
Top Top