TexasCHLforum.com

Ok help me out on this one....
If i work out of a Company Work vehicle aka a van with all my tools, paper work, uniforms, parts, pips. And i drive it all over the Austin area, Is this my place of bussiness and can i carry with out a CHL?

Now I do have a CHL, But a friend and i were talking and made a point that my Van is my place of bussiness there for i can carry in my van with out a CHL.

Is this the case?

KF

Do you have a business license with the address of the van as the physical address of said business?

BrassMonkey wrote:Do you have a business license with the address of the van as the physical address of said business?

Yes with the license that we and i have to hold.

I THINK, and this is speculation, that a business license has to be tied to a physical address. At least it does in Florida. I would venture a guess and say teh answer to your question is, "no"

txi is good at looking stuff up for people, lord knows he has looked stuff up for me :-)

I hold a state A/C license and it does have to be tied to a specific address.

IMHO the only thing I can think of where a truck is a place of business is an ice cream truck, a tool truck or some other type of truck that has items for sale out of it. In these cases I would think yes.

Another option would be a commercial truck driver.

In some or all of the above cases, the traveling law may apply as well

RPBrown wrote:I hold a state A/C license and it does have to be tied to a specific address.

IMHO the only thing I can think of where a truck is a place of business is an ice cream truck, a tool truck or some other type of truck that has items for sale out of it. In these cases I would think yes.

Another option would be a commercial truck driver.

In some or all of the above cases, the traveling law may apply as well

I do know that the traveling law does not apply to commercial vehicles

libertyhillguy wrote:I do know that the traveling law does not apply to commercial vehicles

Please tell me how you know that.

A vehicle is not "premises." Building and land are premises. The law allows the same exceptions for recreational vehicles with living quarters as for residences.

However, you can legally carry a handgun in a vehicle as long the handgun is concealed. That right will become better-defined on September 1.

If you are going to carry only in a vehicle, you can also carry a shotgun or carbine and avoid any possible misunderstanding about handguns.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

libertyhillguy wrote:I do know that the traveling law does not apply to commercial vehicles

Please tell me how you know that.

A vehicle is not "premises." Building and land are premises. The law allows the same exceptions for recreational vehicles with living quarters as for residences.

However, you can legally carry a handgun in a vehicle as long the handgun is concealed. That right will become better-defined on September 1.

If you are going to carry only in a vehicle, you can also carry a shotgun or carbine and avoid any possible misunderstanding about handguns.

- Jim

+1

seamusTX wrote:

libertyhillguy wrote:I do know that the traveling law does not apply to commercial vehicles

Please tell me how you know that.

A vehicle is not "premises." Building and land are premises. The law allows the same exceptions for recreational vehicles with living quarters as for residences.

However, you can legally carry a handgun in a vehicle as long the handgun is concealed. That right will become better-defined on September 1.

If you are going to carry only in a vehicle, you can also carry a shotgun or carbine and avoid any possible misunderstanding about handguns.

- Jim

Ok you got here but come September 1 the bill HB 823 states that:
defense presumption that a person is traveling if he is:
in his private vehicle;
not otherwise engaged in criminal activity (other than a traffic offense);
not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
not a member of a criminal street gang; and
not carrying a handgun in plain view.

libertyhillguy wrote:Ok you got here but come September 1 the bill HB 823 states that:
defense presumption that a person is traveling if he is:
in his private vehicle;
not otherwise engaged in criminal activity (other than a traffic offense);
not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
not a member of a criminal street gang; and
not carrying a handgun in plain view.

It will be "a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control." The vehicle can be owned by you, your spouse, your parent, your employer, a leasing agency, or a car rental company.

More info here.

The current law says "in a private motor vehicle." That could be any of the categories mentioned above. The main exception would be public transportation owned by a government entity.

- Jim

libertyhillguy wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

libertyhillguy wrote:I do know that the traveling law does not apply to commercial vehicles

Please tell me how you know that.

Ok you got here but come September 1 the bill HB 823 states that:
defense presumption that a person is traveling if he is:
in his private vehicle;

Commercial vehicles are private vehicles.

If it's not owned by the government, it's private.

Kevin,

I think we may have some trouble with the definition of a private vehicle. I fully agree that any governmental vehicle is not private, but I am nto sure about all commercial vehicles. The ones I think they did not want to allow carrying in are vehicles for hire, such as busses and taxis. There are privately owned and operated by the business, but open to the public or for hire by the public. I am not sure how the law will look at these.

I hope your definition holds up, but I don't think it will or was the intent.

srothstein wrote:I think we may have some trouble with the definition of a private vehicle. I fully agree that any governmental vehicle is not private, but I am nto sure about all commercial vehicles. The ones I think they did not want to allow carrying in are vehicles for hire, such as busses and taxis.

I guess that's why we have appeals courts.

It would be nice in the first instance if the legislature wrote laws as they intended. They could have written "vehicles owned, leased, or rented by a natural person,*" or "privately owned vehicles other than common carriers."

Even with taxis, the taxi driver is not controlled by the paying passenger, other than going to the requested destination. If a peace officer stops the taxi for a violation of traffic law, the passengers have no part in that; and there is little basis for questioning or searching them.

Commercial buses such as Greyhound are another story. Their passengers are second-class citizens.

*I have no idea whether "natural person" is a concept in Texas law.

- Jim

srothstein wrote:Kevin,

I think we may have some trouble with the definition of a private vehicle. I fully agree that any governmental vehicle is not private, but I am nto sure about all commercial vehicles. The ones I think they did not want to allow carrying in are vehicles for hire, such as busses and taxis.

The difference between "private" and "public accommodation" is often the subject of debate. But a business that is a "public accommodation" is still private property.