Car Carry Legal now?

[DoubleJ]

Funny how we are all "law experts," but no one can speak English properly...

In response to the gentleman from Ft Sill, I understand that you're distraught after having paid all those fees. Don't look at like having some of YOUR privileges taken away; look at like the rest of the world getting THEIR privileges back!

[Xander]

In my mind the question is not about the traveling law itself, but more about how much immunity is extended to LEOs who arrest someone even though no law was broken?

Unfortunately, until there is a test case and someone presses the false arrest aspect, it will go on. I won't blame the LEO as much as the administration/DA in their jurisdiction. Most of them are doing what they have been directed to do by the command.

All the more reason to have your CHL to help you get immunity from the ones that just won't let it go.

What are they going to be charging you with? They can't charge you without claiming that you broke a law. What law would you be breaking? If you want to claim that they can arrest you without your having broken any law, well, they can do that just as easily even if you do have a CHL. You're not ever immune from false arrest.

[Xander]

Everyone on this topic appears rather calm.

Am I the only one who was completely OUTRAGED upon hearing of this new law? Like all of you CHL holders, I paid my dues, $140 to the state and about $100 to take the safety course. I jumped through the rest of the hoops to obtain my CHL and now the state is granting more and more firearm privileges to the non-CHL holders and to the road ragers that have no business carrying a weapon in the first place?

Lacking a better way to put it, it makes the license in my pocket less exclusive. I'm surprised the CHL holders haven't fought back on this issue. People will also argue that any 'bad guys' who tote guns were carrying even before this law was passed, but there DOES exist the class of unstable people who are only carrying now because they legally can. These people are the ones who will draw a weapon and fire, simply because they were cut off or thrown the middle digit on the road. These people shouldn't carry, and had this law not been passed, they wouldn't. I haven't heard of any rise in road rage yet, but I won't relax; it's still early.

Am I talking out of my rectal cavity, or do I make a point at all? Hopefully Texas won't get too out-of-control with the handgun bills.

I am not bothered at all. I support the new law. I didn't get a CHL to belong to a club.

And your other assumptions...well, break the word down.

There are plenty of states where unlicensed car carry (or open carry, or even concealed carry) are allowed. None of them have turned into rivers of blood. It'll be fine. And DoubleJ is correct in my book...We shouldn't *ever* be upset about having our rights restored.

[Keith B]

In my mind the question is not about the traveling law itself, but more about how much immunity is extended to LEOs who arrest someone even though no law was broken?

Unfortunately, until there is a test case and someone presses the false arrest aspect, it will go on. I won't blame the LEO as much as the administration/DA in their jurisdiction. Most of them are doing what they have been directed to do by the command.

All the more reason to have your CHL to help you get immunity from the ones that just won't let it go.

What are they going to be charging you with? They can't charge you without claiming that you broke a law. What law would you be breaking? If you want to claim that they can arrest you without your having broken any law, well, they can do that just as easily even if you do have a CHL. You're not ever immune from false arrest.

Yes, they can fabricate any type of charge and arrest you falsely for it. My statement was (implied) referring to the areas where they have been previously directed by their administration to arrest anyone with a handgun in their vehicle for UCW if they do not have a CHL (i.e. Harris County and apparently Travis County)

[seamusTX]

I'm sorry to hear that police officers are taking this attitude.

The same thing happened when CHLs became available. Some CHL holders were arrested on various charges. In one case, it seemed like they knew that UCW wouldn't stick, so they charged him with resisting arrest, IIRC.

It's difficult to sue for false arrest. You have to pay for your lawyer up-front, and the damages generally aren't much.

- Jim

[pt145ss]

In my mind the question is not about the traveling law itself, but more about how much immunity is extended to LEOs who arrest someone even though no law was broken?

Unfortunately, until there is a test case and someone presses the false arrest aspect, it will go on. I won't blame the LEO as much as the administration/DA in their jurisdiction. Most of them are doing what they have been directed to do by the command.

All the more reason to have your CHL to help you get immunity from the ones that just won't let it go.

What are they going to be charging you with? They can't charge you without claiming that you broke a law. What law would you be breaking? If you want to claim that they can arrest you without your having broken any law, well, they can do that just as easily even if you do have a CHL. You're not ever immune from false arrest.

I may be wrong here, so please correct me if i am, but i believe a LEO can detain someone for up to 72 hours (or something like that) without charges. At the end of 72 hours they either have to charge you or release you. I also suppose that in this case they would arrest because of the weapon and could use that 72 hours for investigative purposes i.e. to make sure you in fact meet all the criteria set forth in the traveling law.

That being said, I understand that LEOs need and deserve some leeway/protection from civil liability as some laws are ambiguous. There just needs to be some oversight so that this leeway/immunity is not abused.

I think…but again could be wrong about this too, that Keith B is correct in that such immunity is extended to the officer until which time case law is established and the officer at that point can not claim immunity.

[DoubleJ]

And DoubleJ is correct in my book...We shouldn't *ever* be upset about having our rights restored.

QFT

[txinvestigator]

I agree with txinvestigator on this one, there is absolutely no ambiguity about the code. When I was waiting on my plastic to arrive I emailed DPS about it. Their response was in fact consistent with the code in that as long as you meet the criteria you could have a loaded handgun in the vehicle. The problem is not in the code itself, the problem is with LE policy for any given jurisdiction. DPS warned me that each jurisdiction are allowed to conduct traffic stops as the see fit and are allowed to handle concealed handgun issues as they see fit. Meaning places like Harris County can still make the arrest and allow the DA to determine if charges are pressed.

Since then, I spoke with 2 Travis County sheriffs specifically about this issue, both of whom said that if they find a concealed handgun in a vehicle and no one has a CHL, the person in control of the vehicle is going to jail. One of the sheriffs went as far to say “You may beat the wrap but you will not beat the ride� (I’ve heard people say this before….but this was the only time I heard it from a LEO and I was floored by his mentality). I also had the opportunity to speak to one Austin PD officer who said something similar but it was more along the lines that it depends on how the traffic stops goes insinuating that if you are not an rear he might let it slide, but if are being an rear you are going to jail.

In my mind the question is not about the traveling law itself, but more about how much immunity is extended to LEOs who arrest someone even though no law was broken?

It has nothing to do with the traveling law. We need to ALL understand that. it is no longer a violation of 46.02, UCW, to have a handgun in a vehicle under your control if you are not a criminal, etc.

I'll answer your other question in another post.

[txinvestigator]

In my mind the question is not about the traveling law itself, but more about how much immunity is extended to LEOs who arrest someone even though no law was broken?

Unfortunately, until there is a test case and someone presses the false arrest aspect, it will go on. I won't blame the LEO as much as the administration/DA in their jurisdiction. Most of them are doing what they have been directed to do by the command.

All the more reason to have your CHL to help you get immunity from the ones that just won't let it go.

The CHL has no more "immunity" than a peson carrying in their car under 46.02.

A Peace Officer is under no obligation to obey an unlawful order. If Admin orders its officers to arrest a person not violating 46.02, that is an unlawful order. A LEO who obeys an unlawful order CAN BE CHARGED with whatever law he violated as a result of that order.

[pt145ss]

Things can be ugly in TX. I was arrested once in my much younger years. Long story short, someone said I had said something that I did not say and the officer arrested me for terroristic threat. The officer simply asked me my name and address and then arrested me. He arrested me without asking any other questions and therefore he never read me my rights nor did he tell me what I was under arrest for. I was not read my rights until the arraignment at which time the judge read me my rights and told me what the charge was…he did not even ask if I plead guilty or not and simply set bail (was set free on my resonance). Later all charges were dropped. Point being, here in TX the officer only needs to write an affidavit saying what he/she believes to be true…not what is actually true. Then DA then decides to go forward or not.

In my case the officer basically said that he believed the other person’s statement and that was all that was needed for the affidavit and arrest….not that he did any investigating to determine truth.

[txinvestigator]

Yes, they can fabricate any type of charge and arrest you falsely for it. My statement was (implied) referring to the areas where they have been previously directed by their administration to arrest anyone with a handgun in their vehicle for UCW if they do not have a CHL (i.e. Harris County and apparently Travis County)

The Harris county DA cannot direct any LE agent to do anything. He did tell officers that he would prosecute anyone they arrested under UCW who claimed the 2005 traveling presumption, claiming the presumption would need to be proven in court. In 2007 the legislators deleted the traveling presumption and re-worked UCW, and now it is not illegal for a law abiding citizen to car carry. The Harris County DA has not said he would file under this new law.

As far as "fabricating" charges.;

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant
acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if
he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or
to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment,
or lien that he knows is unlawful;

Immunity comes in for civil suits, not violations of criminal law. Good faith matters not in criminal violations either. There are also federal civil rights laws that protect individuals from "fabricated" charges.

[txinvestigator]

[I may be wrong here, so please correct me if i am, but i believe a LEO can detain someone for up to 72 hours (or something like that) without charges.

That is completely wrong. The Code of Criminal Procedures lists when a peace officer may arrest. It is not lawful to arrest someone simply to hold them for 3 days while you figure out what to do.

At the end of 72 hours they either have to charge you or release you. I also suppose that in this case they would arrest because of the weapon and could use that 72 hours for investigative purposes i.e. to make sure you in fact meet all the criteria set forth in the traveling law.

They could arrest you for UCW if you were depending on the traveling non-applicability; however, car carry now has NOTHING to do with traveling.

[txinvestigator]

Things can be ugly in TX. I was arrested once in my much younger years. Long story short, someone said I had said something that I did not say and the officer arrested me for terroristic threat. The officer simply asked me my name and address and then arrested me. He arrested me without asking any other questions and therefore he never read me my rights nor did he tell me what I was under arrest for. I was not read my rights until the arraignment at which time the judge read me my rights and told me what the charge was…he did not even ask if I plead guilty or not and simply set bail (was set free on my resonance). Later all charges were dropped. Point being, here in TX the officer only needs to write an affidavit saying what he/she believes to be true…not what is actually true. Then DA then decides to go forward or not.

In my case the officer basically said that he believed the other person’s statement and that was all that was needed for the affidavit and arrest….not that he did any investigating to determine truth.

A peace officer is not required to read you your rights when he arrests you. And your incident has nothing to do with this discussion.

[SkipB]

As an ex Police Officer I never took direct orders from a DA or ADA during the normal process of my daily job. The only time I felt a need for advice from the DA's office was if in the course of my duties I ran upon a law where the wording was unclear of it's intent. Then I would ask for a clearification. The wording in the ability to carry in an auto is clear, no gray area there as I see it. Souldn't be any argument.

[seamusTX]

Someone up the thread asked what the police could charge a person carrying a handgun in a car with. They can charge with UCW (46.02). They can say that they need to determine whether or not the person is prohibited from possessing firearms or a gang member.

There's a huge class of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms: Felons, parolees, people with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions, people under restraining orders, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military, mentally ill, some non-citizens ...

Now, I don't know if this will happen. I hope not. But a few police officers had trouble swollowing the concept of CHL in 1995.

This is one great advantage of having a CHL, even if all you do is take your handguns to the range. The police can determine on the spot that you are not a prohibited person.

- Jim