Old law or wives tale

[troglodyte]

This came up in class today and I had completely forgotten about it.

Years ago there was a law (or rumored to be) that if you were carrying a large sum of money, i.e. the days receipts to the bank for deposit, you could carry a gun (concealed or not I don't remember).

Anyone remember this and what of it?


Good class today...well honestly they've all been good.

[Teamless]

Wives Tale (in my view), as if not, then you are simply saying that "I am rich, so I can carry a gun" when someone with the identical (other than money) history, age, etc, etc, etc, cannot. That is not equal and against the law

[gpeloq]

Old Law. The problem was it did not define large sum. This left it all up to the discrestion of the LEO envolved. It also said "while traveling" but did not define what constitutes traveling. The wives tale part was the amount of money or the distance or time involved. ie: Three county lines or overnight stay. That was not written.

[baldeagle]

Wives Tale (in my view), as if not, then you are simply saying that "I am rich, so I can carry a gun" when someone with the identical (other than money) history, age, etc, etc, etc, cannot. That is not equal and against the law

And yet it was the norm in many places for a long time and still is in places like New York and Chicago and California.

[srothstein]

I think it is still current case law. I don't know how it would hold up with the availability of the CHL, but the Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized it as a common law exception to the charge of unlawfully carrying.

[Greybeard]

An old defense that may have worked for some ...

When the trooper trainer for us explained it in instructor school in the summer of '95, he pulled out his wallet and flashed a few bills and said "Look here. I've got $23. When you work for DPS, THAT is a large sum of money."

The point he was making was that it gave the lawyers something to ague about - and that the CHL program was going to provide a much cleaner way to go about it.