• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

"Traveling" w/ a gun

Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
12,953
Reaction score
3,329
Location
Ft Worth, TX
First Name
Chris
Last Name
Tamez
FYI:
Law was reworked this past session to make it legal to carry a handgun in your vehicle. Legislators "presumed" you would be traveling. This was done to simplify the definition of traveling statewide.

Unfortunately some D.A's (Tarrant Co.in particular) take the position that it is a "legal presumption" and if they provide admissible evidence to disprove "traveling", you can be charged w/ Unlawful carrying of a weapon.

Officers might soon be trained to interview in such a way to obtain affirmative evidence, ie. "Where are you coming from and where are you going to"?
Be as nice as you can and provide your DL, Ins., and Reg. if requested, but you are not obligated to answer that question. Most know, but you are also not obligated to allow a search of your vehicle w/o warrant. The officer can develop probable cause to search w/o warrant ie. smell of dope, but many ask to search w/o probable cause.

I'm pro Cops and Justice but I am sick and tired of Govt. trying to stomp on personal freedoms especially on the right to bear arms.

Heads up and be aware!
 
So, would you suggest that the best action is to get a CHL?

the pricing on the CHL is still a deterent, for me atleast. I took the CHL class several years ago ($125) and then found out it would be another ($100 and whatever) for the license. Didn't have the extra cash at the time.


Also, can you explain what the difference in interpretation is. The way I understood it was that the State had defined "traveling" as basically "anytime you are in your vehicle." Any other places to watch out for or tips you can give? I have definitely "slowed down" since I got out of college, but I still have an occasional run-in with the LAW. I'm always polite and I know that I was in the wrong so I just take my tickets and pay my fines.
 
I thought the definition of "traveling" is going somewhere that is more than 50 miles from your home that is outside of your normal day to day activities (ie commute).

So, when I go to Austin, I carry in my car because I am traveling over 50 miles. However, if I worked over 50 miles away from my house, say Galveston, I could not carry because that is my every day commute.

I really need to get my CHL.
 
Basically, on September 1, 2005, HB 823 created a "presumption" that the driver is "traveling" unless one of five things is true:

(a) the weapon is in plain view,
(b) the defendant is a convicted felon
(c) it's a public, not a personal vehicle
(d) the defendant committed a Class B misdemeanor
(e) the defendant is a known gang member.

However, several high-profile DA's, led by Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal, have instructed officers to continue to make arrests for UCW (unlawfully carrying a weapon) just like they always had. DPS officials have stated that this policy is a blatant disregard of the new statute.

The author of the bill (Rep. Terry Keel) issued this statement:
“HB 823 provides for a legal presumption in favor of citizens that they are travelers if they are in a private vehicle with a handgun that is not in plain view, they are not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity nor otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, and they are not a member of a criminal street gang,” said the bill’s primary author, Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin.

“In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed pistol in a motor vehicle,” Keel said.

“There is no longer the need for a law enforcement officer to apply a subjective definition of what constitutes “traveling” where the citizen is cloaked with the presumption per the terms of the new statute,” he said.

However, I still think a CHL is the best course of action. It takes the "traveling" presumption completely off the table and makes everything much simpler.
 
However, several high-profile DA's, led by Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal, have instructed officers to continue to make arrests for UCW (unlawfully carrying a weapon) just like they always had. DPS officials have stated that this policy is a blatant disregard of the new statute.

I would say such a directive should cost those DA's their jobs. That is inexcusable behavior. It is NOT their job to make the law. This is just another perfect example of some twit in power thinking they are above the law.
 
Tourmeister said:
I would say such a directive should cost those DA's their jobs. That is inexcusable behavior. It is NOT their job to make the law. This is just another perfect example of some twit in power thinking they are above the law.
Can someone file suit against the DA's for that? Would it be official mis-conduct or what?

I'm guessing that these DA's want to challenge the law in court, hence their directive. I say let's do a pre-emptive strike against them and not wait around for some law-abiding citizen to be arrested and have to go to the trouble and expense of fighting this by themselves. The Texas State Rifle Association ought to be all over this.
 
I assume unless you have a CHL, you still can't carry it on your person when riding, even when your **** is sitting on the motorcycle.
 
Tracker said:
I assume unless you have a CHL, you still can't carry it on your person when riding, even when your **** is sitting on the motorcycle.
Interesting point. Wonder if they have defined 'concealed'. In other words, what if the driver of the vehicle is concealing the weapon on their person when stopped. The officer tells the driver to get out of the car (I assume they can do that w/o cause). If the driver complies, is he/she still protected? If they refuse to comply, are they now giving the officer probable cause for all sorts of hassle?

Of course, we are talking about fine points. Doubt officers are out to nail every driver at a traffic stop. I would think that they are going to be looking for very specific clues.
 
This is screwy.

I've always avoided getting a CHL because I don't won't to spend $300 on it and I have no desire to carry concealed.

I carried openly in my car because I always met the conditions of "travelling" and "not concealed".

Are they now saying the handgun MUST be concealed; ie. "out of plain view"??

I thought we got it trouble if it was NOT in plain view.
 
That's another question I had. When carrying a shotgun or rifle, how do they have to be displayed? What do cops think about the shotgun in the back window of a truck? Also, I remember seeing a gun rack that mounted up to the roof, instead of the back window. Is that location "concealed"?
 
As long as I can remember, handguns have to be concealed when carried in a vehicle. Having a handgun in sight is asking for trouble.

Longguns can be in plain view. However, even that can get you in trouble if another person feels threatened or alarmed by the sight of the weapon.

Case in point: A friend of mine was coming back from a skeet shoot with his shotgun laying across the backseat of his Suburban. He pulled into a gas station in Plano and a lady parked across from him could see the gun through the window. She called the police with a "man w/gun" complaint. Although he broke no firearms law, he was ticketed for "disturbing the peace" since the lady was making such a fuss about it. He took it to court and lost.

Also, the HB823 doesn't allow you to carry a handgun concealed on your person while travelling. It can be concealed in the vehicle, but you can't have it holstered on your body since you'd have to remove it to exit the car and then it would no longer be concealed. If you don't have a CHL and an officer asks you to step out of the vehicle, you don't want to be fumbling around with a gun.

My mother simply keeps her S&W in a plain brown paper bag on the seat next to her when she's traveling.
 
:tab What kills me is that there is no end to the ridiculous stories that we hear about how laws are applied in a nonsensical manner, traffic laws and others as well. There is no end to the stories of political graft, corruption, inside backscratching, etc,... There is no end of stories about gross expenditures that accomplish nothing and often make things worse. So someone please explain to me WHY everyone keeps looking to government to make this a better world?! I just don't get it! Everyone rants about "failures of the free market", are they absolutely blind to the failures of government? The government is inherently biased towards corruption and abuse of power. These things are MUCH harder to get away with in the market.

:tab Politicians whine about how no one respects the law or government anymore. Well, you can bet the guy in the post above lost some respect when he got that ticket and lost in court!
 
TexBiker said:
Also, the HB823 doesn't allow you to carry a handgun concealed on your person while travelling. It can be concealed in the vehicle, but you can't have it holstered on your body since you'd have to remove it to exit the car and then it would no longer be concealed. If you don't have a CHL and an officer asks you to step out of the vehicle, you don't want to be fumbling around with a gun.

Just to continue this discussion. Would a tankbag be considered a part of a motorcycle (vehicle) ?
 
Maybe I'm off base, but I always thought that "traveling" was a defined defense for an Unlawful Carry charge? Didn't mean you can't be arrested for it, just that proving you were traveling in court would get the charges dropped/dismissed. This simplification/clarification of the "traveling" condition helps clear up what the terms are for being a traveler, but did it also alter the Unlawful Carry law as well?

Either way, the CHL is still a better umbrella coverage legally if you intend to carry a firearm regularly.
 
TexBiker said:
As long as I can remember, handguns have to be concealed when carried in a vehicle. Having a handgun in sight is asking for trouble.

No. I was told for years that handguns should absolutely NOT be concealed in the vehicle if you don't have a CHL.

I got pulled over on Wells, TX. My handgun was in a zippered carry case in the very, very back of my Honda station wagon.

The cop told me I was "in violation of the concealed handgun law" because my handgun was concealed and I didn't have a concealed license. He was "nice" and didn't press charges against me for that violation.

Does this new law say handguns should be concealed in a vehicle?

I'm confused.
 
Tourmeister said:
I would say such a directive should cost those DA's their jobs. That is inexcusable behavior. It is NOT their job to make the law. This is just another perfect example of some twit in power thinking they are above the law.

District Attorney is an elected position. He is going to do what is politically expediant. Most DA's currently think that most of their supporters who carry have CHL's and are "law and order" types who would applaud getting the guns out of the hands of "criminals".

Just my guess.
 
DPS comment on "traveling"

CHL laws and statutes

Q&A:
Q: What does concealed mean? Can I carry my handgun in plain
view?
A: No. The weapon cannot be visible, and its presence cannot be
discernible through ordinary observation.

Q: Can I carry a handgun without a permit while traveling?
A: DPS recommends that you seek the advice of an attorney

Q: If my handgun is on the seat beside me, am I still considered to be
“carrying?”
A: Yes. The statute refers to carrying a gun “on or about” your person.
Texas courts generally have considered this to include any gun within
your reach, including one stored in your glove compartment or even in
a passenger’s purse, if you can reach it without materially changing
your position.


(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.
 
bushwhacker said:
District Attorney is an elected position. He is going to do what is politically expediant. Most DA's currently think that most of their supporters who carry have CHL's and are "law and order" types who would applaud getting the guns out of the hands of "criminals".

Just my guess.
The new revision to the law was not designed to make it easy for criminals to carry - in fact, if they are a felon the new law still does not provide them any defense. The law was designed to help Farmer John, Rancher Billy Bob, and Grandma Susie carry a handgun in their vehicle for personal protection without fear of prosecution. People like my mom and step-dad that have no interest, inclination (and possibly no ability), to take and pass a CHL course. My stepdad has carried in his truck for probably the last 40 years but I have serious doubt that he could pass the CHL range qualification test.

It's just a way for them to feel more safe about being in the car/truck.
 
John Bennett said:
My handgun was in a zippered carry case in the very, very back of my Honda station wagon.
Per the law it would be very difficult for you to obtain that weapon without "materially changing your position", but that doesn't mean that the deputy can't arrest/cite you for it, it's just means they may have difficulty proving that point.

Bottom line for those concerned about the CHL costs... what is it going to cost you to defend yourself in court against a "carrying" charge? You face a CHL cost of approx $250 for five years of coverage versus a lawyer's fee of $250 for one hour of his time.
 
John Bennett said:
No. I was told for years that handguns should absolutely NOT be concealed in the vehicle if you don't have a CHL.

I got pulled over on Wells, TX. My handgun was in a zippered carry case in the very, very back of my Honda station wagon.

The cop told me I was "in violation of the concealed handgun law" because my handgun was concealed and I didn't have a concealed license. He was "nice" and didn't press charges against me for that violation.

Does this new law say handguns should be concealed in a vehicle?

I'm confused.
HB823 clearly states that the handgun must be concealed in order to comply with the definition of traveling.

The officer that said you were in violation of the law for having a pistol in a case was mistaken. You were violating no such law.
 
MCRyder said:
Just to continue this discussion. Would a tankbag be considered a part of a motorcycle (vehicle) ?
Good question, but it raises another. The new traveling statute specifically says the person must be "in" a private motor vehicle. I tried to find a legal definition of private motor vehicle on various TX DOT / DPS sites but didn't come up with anything. But let's assume that a motorcycle does qualify for that.

The sticky point is the "in" description. For one of these overzealous DA's, being "on" a motorcycle is probably not the same to them as being "in" a car or truck.

Common sense dictates that being on a motorcycle would be the same as being in a car, and therefore the tankbag scenario would be acceptable because the handgun would be concealed within it.

But we're not discussing common sense here, are we?
 
Texas T said:
But we're not discussing common sense here, are we?
No, not when you're talking about the law. ;-)
 
Back
Top