Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
It applies the same for you as for anyone else who is legal to possess a handgun (and you are legal, since you're 19). The traveling presumption does not mention age.HotRod68Camaro wrote:how would the traveling situation apply to me since i am 19? in the past i have just kept my weapon unloaded in a bag in the back seat (doesnt do me much good but it was just transportation).
Thanks, Srothstein, very good explanation. Now I understand. Hopefully this will be fixed.srothstein wrote:There are two things going on that allow the DA's to do this. The first is that their only boss is the voters. They just have to worry about re-election, and so far, the CHL's and travelers have not been a significant enough voting block for them to worry about.Scroggwe wrote:I don't know if this is off topic or not, but I have been wondering how those DA's from Dallas and Harris Counties are being allowed to get away with that? Don't they have someone that is their boss? I have gotten several emails from the TSRA on this issue, but no one has said how to stop these rogue DA's. Apparently they think they are above the law, but I have a hard time understanding how they are allowed to just ignore a law that they don't agree with. Somebody help me understand here!
Second, and much more important, is that they are actually obeying the law. The real problem is the way the law was written. You see, it is generally illegal to carry a pistol on your person. This law does not apply if you are traveling at the time. But there is no set definition of traveling, and the pre-eminent case law says that traveling is a fact to be determined by the jury at the time of trial. Two years ago, the legislature made a move to help this by declaring it a legal presumption to be traveling if you are in a private vehicle, along with a few other conditions.
Their intent was good, to make it legal to carry in a car as a general rule, but the way they went about it, probably due to the politics of getting it past, was not to make it a definition or exception, but to leave it as a presumption. Presumptions can be rebutted in court, so this means that the ultimate fact of whether or not you are traveling is a fact to be determined by the jury at the trial. Thus, you can still be arrested, and the DA will review the case to see if he thinks he can still get a conviction.
There are some bills in the legislature now to fix this, especially since the legislators got their nose out of joint at the way the DA's disregarded their intent and obeyed the letter of the law. Unfortuantely, as long as we still have a chapter 46 in the penal code, we will still have these problems in some way or another. I move to just completely repeal chapter 46 altogether, leaving all carry to the person, with CHL's still issued for those who want to travel, a la Alaska.