The "books" are full of laws that were written one way, then modified by another superseding or subsequent related code (later code overriding or modifying the earlier). Waaaay back before CHL and MPA I had contacted DPS to clarify "traveling". I remember almost exactly what he said, "Traveling is traveling, county lines don't matter. There is no concealed or unconcealed, loaded or unloaded; you are either carrying legally or your not. That said we'd prefer it was loaded and out of sight. Unloaded won't do you any good and out in the open tends to upset folks."Texas1999 wrote:Yes I understand the MPA (Sec. 46.02(a-1)) requires the handgun to be concealed...but the MPA is a part of Sec. 46.02, and Sec. 46.15 says that if I'm "traveling," then Sec. 46.02 as a whole (which includes the MPA) is not applicable.
mojo84 wrote:Motorist Protection Act
<SNIP>
Now this was a DPS commander and not a lawyer, but I carried with that advise for years before CHL and even on the odd occasion I had to reveal I had a weapon to LEO, I never got worse than a grimace.
But "traveling" was a defense to prosecution (after arrest and charges) not an affirmative (this is allowed) law. There was also, to my knowledge, anything stating how the weapon was to be carried. BUT, since then both CHL and MPA have become the law of the land and "traveling" is almost anachronistic. So the safe bet would be that since the CHL and MPA both specifically make it an offense to intentionally carry in plain view; hanging your hat on "traveling" as a defense for open carry will most certainly get you a talking to if not charged.