The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Here, here!! Perfect balance of carry and private property rights.dws1117 wrote:How about legilation that simply states that you car is an extension of your home. That would probably make too much sense.
It is amazing. Check out this thread:dws1117 wrote:It is amazing how many people are under the impression that this new law allows them to simply carry a gun in the car. I have heard several that intend to do just that. I've tried to tell them that it isn't as clear cut as it appears.
Then number of people on GlockTalk that do not know what they are talking about, is higher than any other place in the known universe. I can top that one.EricS76 wrote:It is amazing. Check out this thread:dws1117 wrote:It is amazing how many people are under the impression that this new law allows them to simply carry a gun in the car. I have heard several that intend to do just that. I've tried to tell them that it isn't as clear cut as it appears.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=& ... genumber=1
Sometimes it is downright scary over there.Renegade wrote:The number of people on GlockTalk that do not know what they are talking about, is higher than any other place in the known universe. I can top that one.EricS76 wrote:It is amazing. Check out this thread:dws1117 wrote:It is amazing how many people are under the impression that this new law allows them to simply carry a gun in the car. I have heard several that intend to do just that. I've tried to tell them that it isn't as clear cut as it appears.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=& ... genumber=1
There is a guy in this thread who not only thinks you can ignore 30.06 verbal notice, but if the police are called, the property owner will be investigated and tagged with a fine for giving 30.06 verbal. Says he had it done to a property owner.
http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=& ... genumber=2
Yes, the change in the law shifts the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution. In turn that will make it harder for the prosecution to get a conviction. But the fact remains that if the prosecution can disprove the presumption that a person was traveling, there will most likely be a conviction.orc4hire wrote:Eric, is it your position that the following section of the law doesn't say what it seems to say?
Subsection B seems to be the critical one. To repeat:(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.
That seems to clearly state that the presumption cannot be challenged successfully by questioning how far the person was driving, or where, or for how long. To successfully prosecute, the prosecutor must disprove the facts giving rise to the presumption. That is:(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(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.
How about this. Person without CHL who meets criteria 1-5 has handgun in car/console. It is raining, so they drive 10 year old son 2 blocks to birthday party. Halfway there, or on way home they are pulled over and cop learns of gun in car. Do they have a defense under traveling?orc4hire wrote: That's what the law says. If you believe it says otherwise I would be interested in hearing specifics, not vague hints that 'the presumption can be disproved.'
If all five of these elements are present, then the judge must present the presumption to the jury and he must instruct the jury that, unless the prosecution disproves at least one or more of the five required elements, and nothing else, then the jury must find that the person was traveling. This language and requirement are new and are found in Tex. Penal Code §2.05(b).(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.