Car/Gun Law update

[L8 APEX]

Moonshine can confirm this for us.
Car/Gun law summary
Date updated: Aug 23, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

See Peaceable Journey Section.

§46.15 NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Sections 46.02 and § 46.03 do not apply to: (3) People traveling;

§46.15 (i)

(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.


Admin note
Anyone who can legally possess a firearm, and is traveling, can carry it inside a motor vehicle. The firearm can be loaded and must be concealed. If it is in view it is a violation of the law. Law beocmes effective 9/1/05.

Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A

[Moonshine]

I go to a legislative update tomorrow and should get cnfirmation then, but I believe that what is posted is accurate. :tu: 'Bout damn time they clarified that "traveling" provision.

[jeff56]

Yep, this is accurate. Goes into effect this Thursday. Kind of strange though...we've been wanting a clear definition of traveling outside of case law for some time. Here, they didn't really define it so much as make it a free for all.

Note of caution for some that may flirt with danger. Get stopped for DWI and have a handgun, this exception will not apply.

[Stinkbug]

This looks Federal, doesn't State trump if more restrictive? And is state more restrictive? I was always told it was ok to carry if you were traveling across 3 or more counties:confused:

[SILVER2000SVT]

This is an amendment to a Texas Staute From what I can tell these new rules apply to only officials that are in the process of performing their duties and legally defines the traveling portion of Chapter 46 section 15 subsection (b)(1)(3). Here is the old wording. I could be wrong, but this whole section seems to talk about peace officers and their right to carry.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
Text of subd. (b)(1) as added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1221, § 4




(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as an employee of a penal
institution who is performing a security function;



Text of subd. (b)(1) as added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 28

(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by
Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal
institution;
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under
the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of
the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility
is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or
property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);
(3) is traveling;

[Wht95Lightning]

There's a very in depth discussion of this going on here: www.texaschlforum.com (http://www.texaschlforum.com/)

Regardless of the wording, there is so much misinformation about this that even if you are within your right to have a gun in your car, some DA's (Rosenthal) in particular, are thumbing there noses at the law and saying they will arrest folks for having guns in their cars anyway. :flaming:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3330553

[Moonshine]

Jeff is correct, and I agree that this makes it something of a free for all. In a vehicle it just about negates UCW.

As for the Rosenthal DA, if they follow through on that tactic they're potentially risking a 1983 suit for violation of 4th amendment civil rights.

[L8 APEX]

That new law is a pants down law IMO. The main reason for CHL was to weed out those carrying weapons in cars by narrowing the old laws back then. They added the phrases using "directly to or from" lawful sporting events etc. Now it is a free for all:hammer: .

[microsuck]

Admin note
Anyone who can legally possess a firearm, and is traveling, can carry it inside a motor vehicle. The firearm can be loaded and must be concealed. If it is in view it is a violation of the law. Law beocmes effective 9/1/05.

Federal Law on the Transportation of Firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. Section 926A

How does this change anything? Havent you always been able to take your handgun with you if you were traveling? Thats the "3 counties with plans to spend the night" rule. Thats what my DPS instructor told me. I guess I dont see whats different now.

And I'm assuming this is once again only applying to handguns. Shoulder-fired weapons have always been ok to have on your person, just as long as you dont cause pulbic distress.

EDIT: Wait, I think I see. So now anytime you are driving you are traveling? IE your daily commute can now be handgun-equipped (Non-CHL holders)

[Moonshine]

Thats the "3 counties with plans to spend the night" rule.

EDIT: Wait, I think I see. So now anytime you are driving you are traveling? IE your daily commute can now be handgun-equipped (Non-CHL holders)

There was never any traveling "rule". That was the problem. Traveling was a defense to prosecution, but there was no statutory definition of what constituted traveling. Consequently, there were lots of "rules of thumb" like crossing X county lines, staying overnight, carrying luggage, etc.

As for your second comment, that is correct. Now, anytime you're in a private vehicle you are, by statutory definition, traveling.

[microsuck]

Most excellent. My faith in legislature has been restored. I work at a law firm these days and I printed out the statute sheet and had the attorneys look at it. The concurred with our assumptions. Im going to go drop one of the glocks in the console when I get home. http://www.talonclub.com/forum/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

[SILVER2000SVT]

Terry wrote this as listed as a federal law. The same numbers for chapter, section, sub-section, and paragraph correspond to some Texas laws in a internet source I found. Somebody clear this up for me. I was just wondering is this new definition a federal law or a state law? Thanks

[L8 APEX]

Texas jackass! There is no other law:evil .

[jeff56]

Got some more info in-hand on this tonight, and I immediately realized that I needed to post it up, as I had previously posted info that contradicts what I now know.

This part is all correct:

(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 important part is that meeting that criteria merely creates a presumption that one is traveling. Looking further into penal code under presumptions, I find that a presumption must be examined by a jury. The course our IA guy attended was held for local LE and DA's. Tarrant County DA folks were in attendance and they stated that an arrest was certainly still valid for UCW if a handgun is in the car, but that the arresting officer must articulate in detail why they believe that person was not traveling. Example, you've gone to the store for a gallon of milk and on the way back get stopped. The officer could make the arrest and articulate that one was not traveling as they had simply driven 6 blocks to pick up the milk and were returning home. It would then be up to the jury with the help of the established presumption, to determine if they thought you were traveling and therefore excluded from the UCW laws governing handguns.

The main point is that it was my previous understanding that the legislature had defined traveling using the criteria above, essentially meaning almost any time you were in your car. Apparently, that is specifically not the case at all, as it is essentially just guidelines to help a jury determine whether or not one was, in fact, traveling.

Of course, how the different counties will handle this and what cases will be accepted remains to be seen. Just understand, that it's not the free for all I had originally thought and proceed with caution. From what I gather, this presumption may very easily help you beat the rap, but depending on the circumstances, may not enable you to beat the ride.

Moonshine, anything different on your side of town?

[Moonshine]

Yes, and no.

Sounds like your IA guy went to the TDCA legal update. We had folks go to that and they came away with the same basic understanding. I went to the TPCA legal update and their take was just a bit different. Although presumption is clearly a jury issue, I wouldn't want to try and write a UCW PC affidavit for someone who went 6 blocks to the store to get milk unless I could articulate how doing so did not meet traveling as defined in (i). I do agree that depending upon where you are an what you're doing that you may take a ride and have to fight it in court. In Dallas County, you might spend a night in jail, but I doubt the DA's office would even accept the case absent some different facts.

[jeff56]

Yep, that was the one. I couldn't remember the acronym, so I was bluffing my way through it. :)

I agree completely with your post. If you doubt the Dallas DA would take the case, you can imagine what they'll do over here in "Tolerant" County. That said, I felt it important to at least clarify since I had made the comment earlier that it was now a free for all. I had visions of Microsuck on the side of the road saying, but these guys on the internet said it was OK. :eek:

Our legislature are an interesting breed. Too often they seek to help us or simplify matters, but instead overcomplicate matters. A definition of traveling versus a presumption would have been nice.