• 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!

Carrying a firearm for protection on a motorcycle

Forums New posts
M

mfnlonewolf

0
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Victoria,Texas
First Name
Mike
Any law enforcement members or other experts. How can I legally carry a pistol on my bike while traveling? I know having a handgun permit is one way. I was told that if you are traveling across more than one or two Texas countys or carrying a certain amount of cash, it was allowed. Any more suggestions?
 
Easiest thing, if you can qualify, is to get the CHL. In my opinion, that solves all kinds of possible gray areas which are up to the discretion of the LEO at the scene.
 
I don't know why you feel the need to carry, that's not my call. I do have a CHL and I have carried before, across states that I knew had reciprocity with Texas.

It was a hassle when I wanted to visit Federal/State parks... pull over, unload, stow it... lock it up when I wasn't around... lock it up when I was at a hotel.

I never ever needed it, felt I needed it. Taking the CHL class taught me more about being aware of your surroundings and watching people to anticipate the need to move on.

That's just me, I'm not you... but you might take the time and spend the $$$ and take a CHL class... it will also open your eyes to what you are likely in for in case you do have to pull that trigger :eek2:
 
There currently is a law on the books that would essentially allow you as a motorist to "travel" with a firearm. The gun could be loaded and in your vehicle.
The problem is that some of the Distric Attorneys in TX will still arrest for UCW and you can consider it this as a defense at prosecution.
This is NOT what the TX congress desired when writing/passing the bill but I would wait for an appeal case before carrying a gun in your Vehicle w/o a CHL.

You could always get a CHL and then share reciprocity w/ several other states.
 
The wife and I ponder this matter all the time since we travel long-distance, therefore I have started a poll to see what the statistics are on this site is for carrying.

Steep
 
I also recommend the CHL, as well as making sure you have a lockable method for securing the gun and ammunition separately when you get outside of the jurisdictions which support your CHL. I could see how being a legal Texas CHL holder might actually get you into MORE trouble if caught incorrectly carrying in states where we don't have reciprocity ... kind of that "you should have known better" because you have passed the training on where you can carry, where we have reciprocity, etc.

Do NOT carry a firearm with you when you intend to make any international border crossings.
 
Big time +1 on the CCW permit. I don't leave home without mine. I don't get up in the morning without putting it on, actually.:mrgreen: Don't do you a bit of good sitting in the drawer in the bedroom and as to the WHY you wish to carry, well, the above is enough explanation for me. It's not "I don't think I'll be accosted" (have have before, wouldn't be the first time), but "what if I am accosted." Boy scout moto.

As for state parks, post offices, banks and other businesses with that stupid 30.06 sign, I take the gays in the military approach. I was carrying illegally before I got a CCW, so I figure now, at least I'm legal 99 percent of the time. I've even hiked 14 miles in the chisos mountains while armed, middle of Big Bend national park. No metal detectors there.

I've carried illegally all over Colorado and New Mexico, but I wouldn't attempt Mexico. They don't have anything down there for me, anyway.
 
Being BROKE most of the time is a good cue for paranoia. At least for me it is. I don't and have not carried a weapon since I had to travel in certain parts of Houston late at night.

I had to "display" once, but never fired...02:00hrs, SW Houston, residential area, stopped at red light.. armed car jacker... lost his "courage" when he approached the driverwindow of my car and found himself staring down the barrel of a loaded .357 Mag. He had a snub nozed .38 in his hand, but his feet were faster. I never saw anyone run so fast. The light changed. I drove on unmolested....

On bike.. I don't think carrying is worth all the hassles one might face with a concealed carry permit and surely would face without one. I've been robbed looking down the barrel of a hand gun on two occasions when I was a grad student at University of Houston. In either case had I been armed, the mugger was so careless, I could have easily drawn and killed him...

Conclusion: FOR ME, my choice: No carry. Not worth the hassles and the added danger... just carry a dummy wallet with a few bucks in it and no credit cards, carry no cash over maybe $5 to $10... Carrying a weapon just isn' worth the hassle and the potential for trouble. We all know the law is BACKWARD... In virtually every case it is ILLEGAL to protect yourself.

JR
Lake Livingston, TX
 
"Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s
compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the
glove compartment or console.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/"

Sounds to me that a firearm can be carried in a locked top case or saddlebag but not in a fairing pocket or tank bag that might be construed as a glove compartment or console.
 
JR said:
Being BROKE most of the time is a good cue for paranoia. At least for me it is. I don't and have not carried a weapon since I had to travel in certain parts of Houston late at night.

I had to "display" once, but never fired...02:00hrs, SW Houston, residential area, stopped at red light.. armed car jacker... lost his "courage" when he approached the driverwindow of my car and found himself staring down the barrel of a loaded .357 Mag. He had a snub nozed .38 in his hand, but his feet were faster. I never saw anyone run so fast. The light changed. I drove on unmolested....

On bike.. I don't think carrying is worth all the hassles one might face with a concealed carry permit and surely would face without one. I've been robbed looking down the barrel of a hand gun on two occasions when I was a grad student at University of Houston. In either case had I been armed, the mugger was so careless, I could have easily drawn and killed him...

Conclusion: FOR ME, my choice: No carry. Not worth the hassles and the added danger... just carry a dummy wallet with a few bucks in it and no credit cards, carry no cash over maybe $5 to $10... Carrying a weapon just isn' worth the hassle and the potential for trouble. We all know the law is BACKWARD... In virtually every case it is ILLEGAL to protect yourself.

JR
Lake Livingston, TX
Click to expand...

To each his own, I guess. Had I been mugged twice, there'd be two less muggers in the world to hurt someone else. That's my attitude, take no poop off nobody. I don't put up with such rude behavior as someone threatening me. I've had to pull a weapon on a guy once. Same result, just remember how fast that bum could run. :rofl: It was only a .25, but he only had a knife, so I was still king of the concrete jungle.

BTW, what's the added danger of being armed you speak of? I feel a lot more endangered without a weapon. Walking out of the house without a weapon anymore is sorta like walking outside without pants, just part of my clothing.
 
JR said:
Carrying a weapon just isn' worth the hassle and the potential for trouble. We all know the law is BACKWARD... In virtually every case it is ILLEGAL to protect yourself.
Click to expand...
The Texas Castle Doctrine Bill goes into effect in September...

80R664 RMB-F

By: Wentworth S.B. No. 378







A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
 
My wife and I walked from our motel to a nearby Tex Mex place. We were too tired to get back on the bike and the walk in the cool evening was pleasant. As we walked along talking to each other two men who were walking on the other side of the road put their heads together and changed direction to intercept us. One guy reached into his pocket and came out with something in his hand that he held down by his right leg. My radar was on red alert. I unzipped my gun pouch, wrapped my hand around the but of my Glock and looked the guy right in the eye. They changed course back across the street. They never saw my gun but they knew I had it and would use it. Call it crime prevention at work.
 
How often do you go to the range to keep your skills sharpened?
How many rounds are you putting through the weapon?

I wonder how many people ran out to get their CHL and haven't fired a round since.
 
GregH said:
I wonder how many people ran out to get their CHL and haven't fired a round since.
Click to expand...

One of my instructors told us that many of his previous students had never fired a firearm before taking the CHL certification. And they still passed. The shooting portion is a bit too easy in my opinion.
 
I think the CHL test is a joke. Also, I think there is a big difference between being able to pass that test and being prepared to use your hand gun in self defense. I believe there is a lot more to it than merely having the ability to shoot. That said, being familiar and proficient with your weapon is a step in the right direction.
 
GregH said:
How often do you go to the range to keep your skills sharpened?
How many rounds are you putting through the weapon?

I wonder how many people ran out to get their CHL and haven't fired a round since.
Click to expand...

I used to shoot every week and shot a lot of competition, local clubs, some IDPA for a while, did IHMSA for a brief time 'cause a friend got me into it. Now days, I get out there once a month if I'm lucky. But, it's fun and I do it for pleasure as much as practice. I shot expert with IDPA, started off sharpshooter, so I ain't a duffer with a handgun, been shooting firearms since the age of 6, about 48 years now. Got my first handgun at 16. I tend to shoot slower than some, but usually more accurate. Slow is relative in IDPA, BTW.

I know a LOT of people that take it seriously, but then, most of 'em are gun club members and that's probably not a good representation of the general CCW population. I've seen some pathetic shooters pass their CCW qualification. :rofl: I've also seen some really good shots. But, I don't think limiting the CCW to the highly skilled is wise, either. One of the worst shots I've ever seen in a CCW qualification shoot was a lady that killed a rapist that broke into her home. She killed him with her husband's 1911. So, hey, even she, who barely made the qualification that Stevie Wonder could probably pass saved her life once with a handgun and there's a dead rapist 6 feet under to prove it. She hunts and shoots with her husband a lot, just ain't very good at it. :lol2: I can shoot rings around that woman, but hey, I've never had to shoot a man. She has that experience on me and she's a determined woman. At least she impressed me as a woman I wouldn't wanna mess with, put it that way.
 
sherob said:
+1 I was surprised by a few who passed :eek2:
Click to expand...

Heck, I was shocked by the ones who FAILED :lol2: I mean, I'm not the greatest marksman or anything, but how the heck can you miss that badly and not be legally blind? :eek2:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top