now, i don't think of myself as a dummy, but can someone clarify the clarification of the "while travelling" clause that went into effect 1sep?  i keep getting lost in the verbage, and my legalspeak GPS seems to be broken.

without a CC permit, can i now carry a driver-accessible handgun while driving 25 miles to work?  and furthermore, if i have a drink after work, do i need to revert to unloaded/locked in trunk?

with the influx of refugees, this has become topical.

Just get a CHL..........no worries then.

You could just keep a shotgun in the back seat, just tell them you're going dove hunting.

Quoted: You could just keep a shotgun in the back seat, just tell them you're going dove hunting.

Better have that new TP&W dove tax...I mean stamp.

There has been a bunch of threads on this here and in the Texas forum.  Short answer is that some people think yes and some (including some LEOs) think no.  Best way to avoid the issue is to get a CHL.  

And don't EVER get caught in possession of a gun when you are drinking.  I always leave mine at home if I'm going drinking.  

It is only a defense from prosecution, so you can still be arrested.
There is no minimum BAC for being armed, so intoxicated is what the LEO says.
If there is a pit bull in the car, you will be shot.

Carry a shotgun in plain view or make it in plain view if you get pulled over .The law on a handgun I think,can be in the vehicle if you can prove you are driving across at least three county lines  .If not the pistol and the ammunition have to be seperate one locked in the glove box and the other in the trunk. There seems to be differing opinions on that one.Anyone know of thread with the state statutes on this deal ?

Quoted: Carry a shotgun in plain view or make it in plain view if you get pulled over .The law on a handgun I think,can be in the vehicle if you can prove you are driving across at least three county lines  .If not the pistol and the ammunition have to be seperate one locked in the glove box and the other in the trunk. There seems to be differing opinions on that one.Anyone know of thread with the state statutes on this deal ?

There is nothing in the statute about whether the pistol is loaded or unloaded.  Proof comes at the trial if the officer decides to play it that way, it is a defense to prosecution not arrest.  There is absolutley NO mention of a glove box or trunk.

Quoted: HB 823 was a historic piece of legislation, which attempted to address an antiquated law which had been interpreted to prohibit carrying handguns in privately owned automobiles.  Ironically, the law actually predates the invention of the automobile, having been initially drafted in 1871. Rather than define “traveling,” the new law simply attempts to create a presumption of innocence for law-abiding citizens, replacing a “defense to prosecution” which was, in effect, a law stating that you are guilty until proven innocent. HB 823 was passed without recorded opposition in the Texas House, and by a vote of 29-2 in the Texas Senate.  It was signed into law by Governor Perry.  During committee hearings in the Texas House, there were no speakers in opposition to the law.  It was supported by a broad coalition of Texas Republicans and Democrats, as well as a diverse range of groups including the Texas State Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. If you are carrying a handgun in your vehicle under the authority granted by the new law, HB823, and do not have a concealed handgun license, you are not required to furnish more than your driver’s license and insurance card.  You should not consent to a search of your vehicle and you should not engage in conversation with the officer as to whether or not you are in possession of a firearm or discuss where you were going or coming from. www.tsra.com/

So If I have a CHl I have to let themn know that I have a gun, but If I don't , I don't have to say anything?!?!?

Quoted: correct

That is Fukcde up

Would I be better off traveling without my CHL?


That is the only reason that I got it in the first place....doesnt seem right that a person without a CHL has an easier go at things that someone who has jumped through the hoops to get one

Quoted: Would I be better off traveling without my CHL? That is the only reason that I got it in the first place....doesnt seem right that a person without a CHL has an easier go at things that someone who has jumped through the hoops to get one

No hoops to jump through.
Sign up for a class.
Stay awake in class.
Pass the class.
Pay the fee.
Carry your gun.

Quoted: Would I be better off traveling without my CHL?

Heck no! CHL at hand is better than laying an excuse on a Texas cop.

Quoted: That is Fukcde up

It gets worse.  If you have a CHL, and you have left your CHL as home, but are travelling with your pistol, you are in violation of the CHL regulations, and subject to suspension (even though an ordinary non-CHL citizen would face no penalties for doing the same thing).

Quoted: Quoted: That is Fukcde up It gets worse.  If you have a CHL, and you have left your CHL as home, but are travelling with your pistol, you are in violation of the CHL regulations, and subject to suspension (even though an ordinary non-CHL citizen would face no penalties for doing the same thing).

Hasn't happened to date, according to DPS.

TO:                  Media

FROM:            Terry Keel, State Representative, Austin

RE:                   HB 823 by Keel, Effective 9/1/05

Clarifies Right to Carry Handgun in Vehicle While Traveling

DATE:             August 30, 2005

PRESS RELEASE

Link

It is well established in Texas that a person who is traveling has a right to possess a handgun for personal protection.  The practical problem with this right has historically been that courts have disagreed on the definition of “traveling”.  The legislature has likewise never defined “traveling” because a definition invariably has the unintended effect of unfairly limiting the term to a narrow set of circumstances.

            HB 823 becomes effective September 1, 2005, shoring up the right of citizens to carry a concealed handgun while traveling.  There have been many inquiries to my office from citizens and media regarding the upcoming change in the law and what it means.

HB 823 provides for a legal presumption in favor of citizens that they are travelers if they are in a private vehicle with a handgun that is not in plain view, they are not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity nor otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, and they are not a member of a criminal street gang.

In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed pistol in a motor vehicle.  There is no longer the need for a law enforcement officer to apply a subjective definition of what constitutes “traveling” where the citizen is cloaked with the presumption per the terms of the new statute.  Under those circumstances the citizen should be allowed to proceed on their way.

HB 823 represents the first time a presumption has been crafted in favor of a defendant in the modern penal code of Texas.  The presumption applies unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist.  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.  By enacting this evidentiary standard in conjunction with the presumption, the legislation is intended to have the practical effect of preventing in the first place the arrest of citizens who meet the newly specified prerequisites of being a presumed traveler.  

It should be noted that the very real problem of citizens having to prove their innocence after arrest by the assertion of their right to carry a firearm while traveling was the reason for a 1997 legislative change which replaced the “defense” of traveling with a classification of the statute of UCW as instead entirely “inapplicable” to a traveler.  This change was well-intentioned but did not have the intended effect of protecting honest citizens from potential arrest because the term “traveling” was still left to individual police or judicial officials to define on a case-by-case basis.  As a consequence, law-abiding citizens who availed themselves of their right to have a handgun while traveling continued to face arrest and often later prevailed only in a court of law after proving that they were indeed traveling.

In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances.  For example, to require someone to have an overnight stay in a journey in order to be classified as a traveler would be unfair to persons traveling great distances in one day.  Likewise, a requirement that a citizen be “crossing county lines” may make no sense, such as in areas of Texas where travelers drive hundreds of miles without leaving a single county.  Moreover, the ability of police to elicit such evidence and consistently apply its subjective terms on the street in a traffic stop has not proven practical, at all.  The new statute instead focuses on a defined set of relevant, objective facts that are capable of being determined on the spot by law officers.

There are several additional important points that should be made in regard to the enactment of HB 823 and its interface with current law.

HB 823 does not give “everyone the right to carry a gun in a car”.  State and federal laws applicable to firearms must be noted in conjunction with the new statute’s terms, particularly the limitation of the presumption to persons who are “not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.”   For example, persons subject to an active protective order are not covered by the presumption, nor are persons with any felony conviction or even some misdemeanor convictions for offenses, e.g., family violence.  The presumption is likewise inapplicable to persons associated with a criminal street gang, even if they have no conviction for any offense.  These as well as all other existing limitations on firearm ownership and/or possession make the new statute inapplicable to persons covered by such prohibitions.

Furthermore, as stated in the statute, the presumption will not apply to persons who are otherwise engaged in any criminal conduct.  This would include persons who are driving while intoxicated, driving recklessly, committing criminal mischief, or committing any other criminal offense outside that of a minor traffic infraction.



The presumption also does not apply where the gun is openly displayed.



The enactment of HB 823 was the culmination of study, committee hearings and debate by the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence.  I am confident that the new law will assist law enforcement in doing its job while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens from the threat of arrest for merely exercising their right to arm themselves while traveling----a right to which they are already entitled.

For further information, contact State Representative Terry Keel, 512-463-0652.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: correct That is Fukcde up You can carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in the front seat if you prefer not to hassle with it.

What about a loaded rifle BEHIND the seat of a single cab pickup?  I don't know about you, but I think it would make an LEO a little twitchy if I said "Is there a problem, Officer?" with a loaded EBR inches from me.

Quoted: That is Fukcde up You can carry a loaded shotgun or rifle in the front seat if you prefer not to hassle with it. What about a loaded rifle BEHIND the seat of a single cab pickup?  I don't know about you, but I think it would make an LEO a little twitchy if I said "Is there a problem, Officer?" with a loaded EBR inches from me.

I was stoped one time by Farmers branch PD a while back..  had 4 AR's two shotguns behind the seat .. one of the AR's was loaded..

he asked if i knew why i was stoped I said "no" ..
he asked if i had any weapons on me or in the truck.. I said " yes" .. and told what I had.
I was asked to get both hands on the wheels and he even went back to his car.. and came back with a ticket for me to sign,, < didnt even ask to step out of the truck >

thanks.  i was under this impression, but didn't want to bet an arrest on it.

as for the CHL, i'm trying to stabilize my work schedule enough to take the course.  i currently only have 24hrs notice of my schedule, and don't want to have to split up the course into different weeks.

Very timely post, TacticalStrat - That one's going in the scrapbook!