Traveling

[RoundRock_Gun_Fan]

I have a friend who is a officer and when the law first passed I asked him how he interpreted it. He told me, If you are legal to own a gun and are driving your car then you are traveling. I then told him that some DA's, especially Harris County, didn't see it that way and have told their officers to arrest people. He just said, "Let the lawsuits begin".

On a side note: To answer Stash's question, Yes, they will look at your finger print card. They have a guy there who looks at them and determines if they are good. If he doesn't approve he will redo them for a price though. I think it's $10. The location is on the corner of Airport and Denson.

[Mithras61]

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.

[Tom]

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

[Mithras61]

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.

[Tom]

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.

OK, that sounds better. Thanks for the clarification.

Kind Regards,

Tom

[kauboy]

I appreciate the clarification as well ;)

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. Since you must meet all five to be presumed to be traveling, then if you don't meet even one of them, how are you to be considered traveling. If your not allowed to have a handgun, you're not considered traveling. If you are a gang member, you're not traveling. If it's not concealed, you're not traveling. If your not in a private vehicle, you're not traveling. And, if you're commiting a crime above a class C misdemeanor, you're not traveling.

My question is, how can you be considered traveling and fall outside of this scope? You don't have to meet any requirements beyond it, only these five things.

I am a little disheartened to hear about the Ft. Worth DA's stupid decision.

I am troubled about this:

Basically, "they" don't want folks just riding around town and claiming protection under the "traveling" rule when in fact they aren't traveling...

The sole purpose for the "traveling" law was so that citizens who were "traveling" could defend themselves within the confines of their own vehicle. I don't see why I should only be able to defend myself from a carjacking only if I'm going to spend the night somewhere. I think the new traveling wording is to describe the fact that I should be able to protect myself within my vehicle no matter how far or how long I am driving.

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.

I really wish people would read the law more often and keep up with its changes. This is simply not right. The law clearly gives a description of what presumption of traveling is: Texas Penal Code: Title 10, Chapter 46, Section 46.15, subsection (i)

[txinvestigator]

I appreciate the clarification as well ;)

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. Since you must meet all five to be presumed to be traveling, then if you don't meet even one of them, how are you to be considered traveling.

That is not how the presumption works at all. If they intended for those 5 to always be required, they would have made it a definition rather than a presumption.

Nowhere in the presumption does it indicate that it is the ONLY way to be traveling. It does not read, "a person is presumed to be traveling ONLY if....."

If I am traveling from Dallas to Galveston without a CHL for vacation I could decide NOT to conceal the weapon. That is because traveling is an exception to UCW, just like carry on your own premises is an exception. The problem with that is the fact that any LEO who observes me will get to decide if he believes I am traveling. Having luggage in the car, a Dallas address on my DL and a hotel reservation receipt for a Galveston would all go towards showing that I am traveling.

If I conceal the weapon now I meet the presumption and it is not open for interpretation.

[kauboy]

In addition:

This was stated by a State Representative in Austin who actually voted on the this change to the law. His name is Terry Keel.

In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed pistol in a motor vehicle. There is no longer the need for a law enforcement officer to apply a subjective definition of what constitutes “traveling� where the citizen is cloaked with the presumption per the terms of the new statute. Under those circumstances the citizen should be allowed to proceed on their way.

Here is a link to Mr. Keel's statement on the matter: New Law on Carrying a Firearm while “Traveling� (Yes, there is a statement from the DPS concerning what DAs will do, but the burden of proof is in their hands now, not yours.)

Plus, since this is a presumption in favor of the citizen, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the citizen does not meet one of the criteria. If they cannot do that, then the person is presumed to be traveling and may seek legal action for wrongful arrest.

If O.J. could get reasonable doubt, any of us should be able to.

[kauboy]

I appreciate the clarification as well ;)

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. Since you must meet all five to be presumed to be traveling, then if you don't meet even one of them, how are you to be considered traveling.

That is not how the presumption works at all. If they intended for those 5 to always be required, they would have made it a definition rather than a presumption.

Nowhere in the presumption does it indicate that it is the ONLY way to be traveling. It does not read, "a person is presumed to be traveling ONLY if....."

If I am traveling from Dallas to Galveston without a CHL for vacation I could decide NOT to conceal the weapon. That is because traveling is an exception to UCW, just like carry on your own premises is an exception. The problem with that is the fact that any LEO who observes me will get to decide if he believes I am traveling. Having luggage in the car, a Dallas address on my DL and a hotel reservation receipt for a Galveston would all go towards showing that I am traveling.

If I conceal the weapon now I meet the presumption and it is not open for interpretation.

I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. Here is the wording again, verbatim:

(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.

Now, notice the "and" between #4 and #5. That "and" implies that ALL criteria must be met, to be presumed to be traveling. If the word "or" were used, you would be correct. But, if you decide not to conceal your handgun while traveling to Galveston(a great island BTW) then you are not legally traveling with a handgun.

[Mithras61]

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?

[kauboy]

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.

[seamusTX]

Does anyone know when these laws were originally enacted? The state web site traces legislative history only to 1975.

Before WW II, most travel was not by private automobile. If you were walking or in a horse and buggy, you had a reasonable need for a weapon, and you would have to carry it on your person most of the time when you stopped for necessities.

- Jim

[kauboy]

The "Traveling" Non-applicability Law was implaced in 1997 since Texas hasn't always been a CC state.
However, the traveling presumption wording was only added last year(2005) in September.

[Mithras61]

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.

[txinvestigator]

I appreciate the clarification as well ;)

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. Since you must meet all five to be presumed to be traveling, then if you don't meet even one of them, how are you to be considered traveling.

That is not how the presumption works at all. If they intended for those 5 to always be required, they would have made it a definition rather than a presumption.

Nowhere in the presumption does it indicate that it is the ONLY way to be traveling. It does not read, "a person is presumed to be traveling ONLY if....."

If I am traveling from Dallas to Galveston without a CHL for vacation I could decide NOT to conceal the weapon. That is because traveling is an exception to UCW, just like carry on your own premises is an exception. The problem with that is the fact that any LEO who observes me will get to decide if he believes I am traveling. Having luggage in the car, a Dallas address on my DL and a hotel reservation receipt for a Galveston would all go towards showing that I am traveling.

If I conceal the weapon now I meet the presumption and it is not open for interpretation.

I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. Here is the wording again, verbatim:

(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.

Now, notice the "and" between #4 and #5. That "and" implies that ALL criteria must be met, to be presumed to be traveling. If the word "or" were used, you would be correct. But, if you decide not to conceal your handgun while traveling to Galveston(a great island BTW) then you are not legally traveling with a handgun.

Yes, you must meet all 5 of the criteria to have the presumption; however, the presumption is not the ONLY way to be traveling as per 46.15. If it was, it would be a definition or it would read; For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed
to be traveling ONLY if the person is...............

It is not exclusive, it is INclusive.