TexasCHLforum.com

Nightmare and Howdy,

A person who meets the rules of traveling, as defined in PC 46.15 and case law, is exempt from PC 46.02. Since PC 46.02 makes all carrying illegal, either open or concealed, a person who is traveling can then carry openly or concealed.

The problem is that there is no legal definition of traveling in the Penal Code. The Code Construction Act then says that we use its normal meaning unless a technical meaning has been arrived at or implied by other law. The controlling case law on this stems from 1909 (I think). In a case back then, the appeals court ruled that traveling was a condition to be determined by the trier of fact. So, if you can convince the jury you were traveling, then you can carry. If you can't, then you are not traveling.

In its original wording, the MPA (not called that then) said that traveling included being in a car. It did not say that was the only form of traveling. In its current configuration, the MPA makes no mention of traveling and does not impact the definition in any way. It is not part of the elements of the offense for the prosecution to prove that you were not in a car with the weapon concealed.

So, to give at least one example of a traveler, a person who is riding a horse from Fredricksburg to San Antonio for the trail rides leading up to the rodeo could make a strong argument that they were traveling and could wear their STI 1911 openly. I would bet on their being arrested anyway, but I think a good lawyer could make one heck of an argument that this was traveling, as intended by the exception since it was first passed in the 1800's. I am not recommending this, but i would be willing to testify in their behalf if it happens.