TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote:He was not traveling legally with a handgun because it was not concealed. The view I take on this law is that a handgun may be kept in your private vehicle. If the "traveling" desctiption was as strict as your story is portraying, then any officer could claim that for the simple fact that you stopped your vehicle when he pulled you over, you are no longer traveling and therefore in violation if you get out of the vehicle.

You're dodging the question as I asked it, sir. I specifically qualified that the handgun state was exluded from being illegal in my question.

Furthermore, he exited the vehicle aside from the LEO stopping him. That is a strawman argument.

As to the weapon being kept in a private vehicle, it can be kept there, provided that it is secured (as in locked to something like the vehicle or the frame of the seat). It can't be just chucked under the seat or in the glove box.

Anyway, my point was that it is conceivable to me that someone may not have all five conditions apply and still net be in violation of the law because they were actually traveling. I feel the definition and conditions specified are fairly narrow.

kauboy wrote:As for the Law, as stated earlier, a person is pressumed to be traveling if they meet five criteria. But I don't agree that anyone could be traveling who does not meet those criteria.

If the five items you refer to are these:

• (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.

the the person described in my earlier post who stopped at a convenience store would be presumed to NOT be traveling, since when the officer approached him he was not in the vehicle.

For the sake of discussion, let's suppose that he was in fact being honest in all other particulars (that is, he was going to Midland to stay with his mother who was going to be buying clothes for him and she doesn't have a phone), and that the handgun was (for whatever reason) NOT a violation of carying concealed, are you suggesting that he was NOT traveling because he was not in the vehicle? I mean there are circumstances that would place him outside the vehicle (toilet break, f'rinstance) that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the presumption that he was actually traveling, right?

Tom wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:
I wish someone would take this up in a lawsuit (I certainly can't afford to), but considering the costs involved, it is unlikely to go very far unless someone with more money than sense is charged.

"More money than sense"?
I hope you were simply using a phrase and didn't really intend to imply what you actually said.

Kind Regards,

Tom

NO offense was intended to anyone by my use of that phrase. It is intended to refer to those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford this sort of fight and to not have to worry about the costs involved.

txinvestigator wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:

SW40VE wrote:I travel out of town for business. I do not have my CHL yet. When I travel, I often have to go through border checkpoints also. I do not cross the border and I will be traveling through at least 3 counties.

I would like the personal security of having my weapon with me when I stay in a hotel room. Is this a legal travel? What about while I am out conducting business out of town and have already checked out of my hotel. Is it safe to have it in the vehicle locked and secured?

According to what I was told in my CHL class, the term "traveling" is generally understood to imply an overnight stay away from your residence.

The instructor said that based on this definition, someone who drives to San Antonio from Houston, spends the afternoon and then drives home that night is NOT traveling, but someone who drives to San Antonio, spends the afternoon and then stays the night in a hotel before driving home the next morning IS traveling.

That is not accurate. There has never been a definition of traveling. It was up to a court to decide if a person charged with UCW was traveling. The overnight stay was allowed by one court; however, in other cases an overnight stay was not allowed. There were also cases where people were found not guity because they drove from county, thru another to a third, all in one day, and the court decided not guilty.

There was never precedent set at the appelate court level. No court was bound to the decisions of other courts.

All of which was why (at the end of the class), the instructor said it would be less costly and far easier for those who wish to have protection with them to simply get their CHL.

I wish someone would take this up in a lawsuit (I certainly can't afford to), but considering the costs involved, it is unlikely to go very far unless someone with more money than sense is charged.

SW40VE wrote:I travel out of town for business. I do not have my CHL yet. When I travel, I often have to go through border checkpoints also. I do not cross the border and I will be traveling through at least 3 counties.

I would like the personal security of having my weapon with me when I stay in a hotel room. Is this a legal travel? What about while I am out conducting business out of town and have already checked out of my hotel. Is it safe to have it in the vehicle locked and secured?

According to what I was told in my CHL class, the term "traveling" is generally understood to imply an overnight stay away from your residence.

The instructor said that based on this definition, someone who drives to San Antonio from Houston, spends the afternoon and then drives home that night is NOT traveling, but someone who drives to San Antonio, spends the afternoon and then stays the night in a hotel before driving home the next morning IS traveling.

He also said that the problem with the term "traveling" is illustrated in the encounter where a LEO stopped at a convenience store and spotted what appeared to be a loaded handgun on the seat of a vehicle. When he began questioning the vehicle's driver, the LEO was told that the driver was traveling to Midland (the c-store was in the Houston area). When the LEO observed that the driver had no clothes in the car, he was told that the driver's mother lived in Midland and would be buying him quite a few clothes once he arrived. The LEO suggested that they contact his mother to verify his destination and was told that the drivers mother was quite old and on a very limited income and could not afford a telephone. The LEO asked about hotel/motel reservations they could use to verify the intended travel and was told that the driver planned to stay with his mother, who had a large house with plenty of empty bedrooms.

The question that arises from this is how is the LEO supposed to determine if the driver is actually "traveling" or not? Since he simply cannot determine the answer to this, the DA has instructed that the LEOs charge the driver and let the Jury sort it all out.

Basically, "they" don't want folks just riding around town and claiming protection under the "traveling" rule when in fact they aren't traveling, but what constitutes "traveling"? Since there is nothing in the law that lays out exactly what is meant by the term, the DAs have decided to leave it up to the Juries and the Judges.