Okay Guys,
From this
THREAD I am requesting a
FIRE MISSION to email the District Attorney's Office - Chuck Rosenthal.
His email address is
[email protected]PLEASE - be articulate and polite, but strong in your position.
Below is a letter that I sent, along with his response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear District Attorney Rosenthal,
I was greatly disappointed to read your reaction in the August 30th Houston Chronicle to the recently passed HB823, which clarified "presumption of traveling" with regards to carrying a handgun in a private motor vehicle.
It appears that the District Attorney's office has lost sight of this new law's intent - to ALLOW law-abiding citizens, the very same ones that elected you to office, to protect themselves and family while in their privately owned motor vehicles.
These law-abiding citizens are of no threat to you, law enforcement officers, or other citizens.
It is counter productive to crime reduction to prosecute law-abiding citizens for their efforts to defend themselves.
I strongly suggest that you reconsider the intent of the Legislature, and thus the people of Texas, before attempting to prosecute a law-abiding citizen with regards to this matter.
With Best Regards
CMOS
----------------------------------------------
His response:
Sirs, the Texas law reads that a person commits an offense if he intentional, knowing or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun illegal knife or club. It is a class A misdemeanor to commit such an offense. The law says further that there are exceptions to this law. Hunting, fishing going to and from gun ranges AND traveling. If the new law had read that a person IS traveling when they are in a private vehicle, are not committing other crimes, not prohibited from having a handgun etc., that would be one thing. This new bill creates a "presumption" of traveling in those circumstances. That means that if someone is not actually traveling, they are in violation of the law.
Legally, when a presumption exists, the State (prosecutors) have to produce evidence that overcomes that presumption.
For example, if a friend of yours catches someone burglarizing his home and holds them for the police, at trial the burglar is PRESUMED to be innocent.
If someone is driving from his home to the grocery store to get a gallon of ice cream, he is not traveling within the court recognized meaning of the term.
During the session, we pointed out to the legislators that they needed to define "traveling". They could not. Since 1845 appellate courts have made determinations on what is and what is not traveling. Some decisions say traveling is from county to county if not habitually done. Some require longer journeys.
Another example. Police officer stops someone for running a stop sign and sees the butt of a handgun under the seat. The officer asks the destination of the motorist. Maybe it's the grocery store 2 blocks away and he intends to return to his home, 2 blocks the other direction. Is he traveling as the courts have interrupted that term?
The law used to be that if a citizen wanted to take advantage of the traveling defense, the defendant had to produce evidence that he was, in fact traveling. Now, the ball is in our court to prove that someone was not traveling.
If everyone in Texas who wanted to carry a handgun was an innocent citizen, we wouldn't need the law. Problem is that a lot of folks who get caught carrying guns.
The purpose of my letter to the editor was not to crusade. It was to warn Texans and others in ALL COUNTIES of this state that they will be subject to arrest if they carry weapons in violation of the law. Because sir persons are PRESUMED to know the law whether they do or not.
CR
------------------------------
another respnse from me:
Mr. Rosenthal,
Thank you for the response.
No doubt, there are those who carry a weapon who are not "innocent." That would never need to be under debate.
My point, and seemingly the point of other citizens that wrote you, is that if a citizen was traveling to the grocery store 2 blocks away (have to "travel" to get there, right?) and they were stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer for something such as a simple traffic violation and discovered the presence of a concealed weapon via questioning, why would your office seek to prosecute in this situation?
There is discretion on the part of your office to prosecute or not, in many cases that are not clearly "black and white" especially, when in my example case above, no harm or intent to harm was done.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this.
With Best Regards,
CMOS
-----------------------------------------------
His (weak) response:
Blame it on lawyers. Traveling, as far as the Penal Code goes has a particular meaning as in "one who goes on a trip or journey" and not one who simply changes his location.
CR