TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:43 pm**

I know that a new traveling with a firearm in a personal vehicle law was passed during the 2007 session. Does any one know of any issues pertaining to this law have surfaced in or around the Dallas Ft Worth area? ie. are the departments acknowledging the new law or still prosecuting?

thanks for the info.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:09 pm**

tx glock guy wrote:I know that a new traveling with a firearm in a personal vehicle law was passed during the 2007 session. Does any one know of any issues pertaining to this law have surfaced in or around the Dallas Ft Worth area? ie. are the departments acknowledging the new law or still prosecuting?

thanks for the info.

The change in 46.02 had nothing to do with traveling. (actually the presumption of traveling was removed from 46.15.)
Departments cannot arbitrarily prosecute laws that no longer exist, or old versions of changed laws.

Texas Penal Code

Â§ 46.02. Unlawful Carrying Weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:34 pm**

To sum up: there is no longer a traveling presumption or defense to prosecution if you are carrying in your car.

Traveling does still apply if you aren't in a motor vehicle, but it has still not been defined. Cross country bicycle trips, wagon trains, horseback trail riding, hitchhiking or walking... there are lots of forms of travel.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:38 pm**

I don't live anywhere close to Dallas Ft. Worth but.... I asked one of the guys running for sheriff in Moore county what he thought about concealed carry, he said:

No problem with concealed carry but he better not catch anybody with a loaded gun in their vehicle. I told him an unloaded gun wasn't good for much and I wouldn't be voting for him. (Eloy Ortiz is his name)

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:54 pm**

If that guy gets elected and tells his deputies to arrest for something that isn't a crime, he's got a surprise coming.

- Jim

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:52 pm**

seamusTX wrote:If that guy gets elected and tells his deputies to arrest for something that isn't a crime, he's got a surprise coming.

Don't be too sure. Not every tin pot dictator sends inappropriate email to female staff.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:03 am**

This is how it worked out for me on Jan 29th......

I drew my weapon today
I will try to keep this short.....
I drive a tow truck. I was picking up a car on the left shoulder of a very busy hwy. Needless to say, most of the cars didnt even act like I was there....as always.

I had finished loading the car and was picking up my traffic cones. While I was doing this an SUV was not giving me much room. I dropped the cone and backed out of the way. When I dropped the cone, it fell over into the lane of traffic and the SUV hit it.

He slamed on his breaks and come to complete stop and put his car in park....IN THE FAST LANE of traffic moving 70mph.

As he is getting out I am tossing the cones on the bed of my truck and heading to the cab of my truck.

He asked if I had thrown the cone in front of him. I told what had happened and said I was sorry that he hit it.

I guess he didnt like the answer and got even more upset. (verbal remarks that I wont repeat) He then began writing down the company info on my passenger door as I am climbing up into my truck.

At this time he reaches for my door handle. I reach to lock it but he gets it open before I can.

He gets the door open and appears to be entering my truck. At this time I am thinking...this guy is NUTS. He parked his car in the FAST lane during rush hour and now he trying to get in my truck. I draw my gun from the console, aim COM, and yell at him to get away from my truck. His eyes got the size of tires and said he just wanted my name. I told him it was none of his business and to get away. He said "now your really in trouble and slammed my door.

I drive away and call 911. Disp asked if I wanted to make a report. I declined telling her that i just wanted to call it in because I had nothing to hide. She got my name and said have a great evening.

About 30 min later an Officer called me. The other guy was making a report and the LEO wanted my side. I told him what happened and he said have a great day. Didnt ask for my whole name or DOB or any other info. Just asked, IF needed, could he contact me on that same number. I said yes sir.

They also called my boss, who already knew the story. According to my boss the other guy said, " apparently the laws have changed in Texas. Your driver is legal to carry and I could have been shot for opening his door."

My boss man said he didnt blame me for doing what I did.

I am just thank full...1. I didnt get hurt,,,2 I didnt have to shoot.

maybe that guy will think twice about opening a strangers door in the future.

One thing that really bothers me about this, is the LEO gave him my name. I dont like that at all. Now he can find out where I live. I hope i dont see him in my drive way. That could be a bad thing.
__________________
David

Ride hard and Shoot safe

The first rule of gunfighting should be to know when the gunfight starts - being the last one to get the news certainly won't put the odds in your favor.
target1911 is online now Report Post Reply With Quote

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:15 pm**

KBCraig wrote:To sum up: there is no longer a traveling presumption or defense to prosecution if you are carrying in your car.

Traveling does still apply if you aren't in a motor vehicle, but it has still not been defined. Cross country bicycle trips, wagon trains, horseback trail riding, hitchhiking or walking... there are lots of forms of travel.

Actually, this is all wrong technically. There in fact IS a traveling assumption for motor vehicles, codified in TPC 46.02 by specifically stating that carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle is not a crime. The "traveller assumption" in this state is therefore not a defense to prosecution, it is an exemption from prosecution in set circumstances (otherwise it's not an assumption as the officer can lawfully arrest you and let you convince a judge you didn't commit a crime). Texas does this a lot especially concerning weapons; they make a weapon or carry of a weapon illegal and then define exceptions to the prohibition. It's similar to Florida's permitless CCW in their Statutes Section 790.25. The previous version of 46.02 defines "travelling" as a circumstance in which the person has not committed an offense, but requires no presumption on the part of the officer. The change makes it absolutely clear that a person carrying a weapon concealed in a vehicle is lawful unless the person openly displays the weapon, is a gang member or is committing a crime more severe than a traffic violation.

However, "travelling" as it was loosely stated is no longer an exemption. You must be in your home, motor vehicle or travelling directly between the two in order to not be in violation of 46.02. There are a few exceptions through some quirks in Texas' definition of a "motor vehicle". In short, anything that is required to follow Texas traffic laws when on public thoroughfares is considered a motor vehicle. That means a horse and carriage, bicycle, dirt bike, ATV, dune buggy, golf cart, etc are all motor vehicles whether they technically fit the term or not. Horseback riding may or may not be OK; I don't believe it's illegal to ride a horse in public, but it is not defined as a motor vehicle. Either way in most cases regarding horses, you're on private property or out in the boonies, and if you are allowed by both State law and the landowner to carry a weapon on that property without a permit, it doesn't make a difference whether you're on foot or on horseback.

Walking is a DEFINITE no-no; the travelling clause in its current form was stricken for that exact reason. In the absence of any other definition, if you are moving from point A to point B you are travelling, and thus the vague definition allowed LEOs to go both ways; you either were only "travelling" in such a narrow set of circumstances as to be useless to most residents, or you're "travelling" whenever you're propelling yourself over the ground by any means. The clarification now means being in or on a motor vehicle is "travelling", period. Walking as a form of travelling may be technically correct, but it makes TPC 46.02 unenforceable and Subchapter 411(H) of the GC meaningless except for TABC signage, and thus it was stricken in favor of a clearer exemption that maintains the spirit of other existing law.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:41 pm**

This is the current law:

Â§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who: (3) is traveling;

This statute has been in effect for over a century, with minor changes in wording.
- Jim

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:27 pm**

Liko81,

No, there is no relationship between traveling and the law allowing a weapon in the car. When they rewrote the law this year, they included the part about being in a car as necessary elements of the offense. Legally, this means that these are factors that must be proven as part of the charge, i.e., that you were not in a car, or that if you were in a car you had the weapon visible, or were committing another crime, etc.

This is different from the previous law's presumption for traveling. In that case, a specific legal statement of how the law will view certain facts. In that law, if you were in a car, you were presumed to be traveling, which is an exception to the law.

And, as Jim pointed out, while we no longer have the presumption written into the law, we do still have the exception for traveling. This could apply to you if you were walking, riding a horse, a gang member, carrying in your car in plain view, or any other factors which would make you otherwise guilty under the current law. And, according to the pre-eminent Court of Criminal Appeals case on traveling (from around 1910 IIRC), traveling is a fact to be determined by the jury during the trial.

Thus, if you have a jury that has several basketball coaches on it, you might be able to convince them that you were traveling if you moved both feet without dribbling. But, other than that, you take a chance on whether or not you can convince the jury you are traveling. Some have taken very simple rules for traveling, some have taken fairly unusual cases as not traveling. and there is no real pattern.

TexasCHLforum.com

traveling

traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling

Re: traveling