TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote::shock::shock:
Its not a luxury!!! Its your RIGHT AND OBLIGATION AS A FREE AMERICAN!

Whoa there guy. Calm down.


First off, its my right, yes. However my obligation to fall on a grenade over a small issue easily solved by obtaining the proper license? No thanks.

When they come to my house to take my 2nd Amendment Rights, they will do so out of my cold dead hands. But I am not going to go looking for a fight, either.


My obligation will always come to my family first. I have to stay out of jail and alive for that to happen. No "luxury" to go fight legal battles that aren't 100% absolutely necessary. I much prefer to be wise about the battles I pick.

And you will continue to submit to the will of dictatorial authorities who wish to ignore written law. Well some people don't want to live in a world where that happens.

If for the simple reason of not being able to afford a CHL, shouldn't someone still be able to protect themselves within the confines of his own vehicle if the law states that it is legal to do so? ~$240 could be a lot of money for others such as yourself who live "paycheck to paycheck." Maybe not everyone can afford the luxury of a CHL. But that should not hinder them from proper and legal defensive abilities simply because of one man with a vendetta.

SW40VE wrote that he was going to take his paper work to Austin (I assume the CHL Unit) to make sure his fingerprints were OK. Does anyone know if the CHL Unit actually has someone there who can tell good fingerprints from bad and if so will they take the time to look at them for you. If they do this I might entertain doing this for my renewal. Don't live to far from Austin.

Another solution in dealing with DAs that have stated their intention to prosecute, despite the new law on travelling - the ballot box.

Popshot wrote:Another solution in dealing with DAs that have stated their intention to prosecute, despite the new law on travelling - the ballot box.

Yes sir, & you guys in that area should make it an issue.

Popshot wrote:Another solution in dealing with DAs that have stated their intention to prosecute, despite the new law on travelling - the ballot box.

Excellent thinking!!! Now we just have to figure out which areas the DPS referred to in their little memo about this. I think I'm gonna start calling a few places.

kauboy wrote:Now we just have to figure out which areas the DPS referred to in their little memo about this. I think I'm gonna start calling a few places.

Start with Houston.

sparx wrote:

kauboy wrote:Now we just have to figure out which areas the DPS referred to in their little memo about this. I think I'm gonna start calling a few places.

Start with Houston.

Amen.

We should use our "boxes" in proper order whenever possible: Soap, ballot, then ammo.

You are right of course... and I for one am ashamed so many of us (including me) don't stand up for our rights on a regular basis...

Would be nice to have the resources to do so all the time.

FWIW

Chuck

kauboy wrote::shock::shock:
Its not a luxury!!! Its your RIGHT AND OBLIGATION AS A FREE AMERICAN!

I believe that the Tarrant County DA (Fort Worth) has also made public his intent to continue prosecuting otherwise law-abiding motorists for having handguns in their vehicles.

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.

The term "traveling" was defined by the last session of the Texas Legislature:

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03
do not apply to:
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(3) is traveling;

(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.

Mithras61 wrote:

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.

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.

S&W6946 wrote:The term "traveling" was defined by the last session of the Texas Legislature:

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03
do not apply to:
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(3) is traveling;

(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.

That is not a definition, it is a presumption. That is an important distinction because a definition would mean those are the ONLY way a person would meet the traveling exception.

As a presumption, a person COULD still be traveling even if they don't meet those 5 requirements.

TxI, thanks for that clarification.