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.
:shock::shock:
