Oh, boy. This is going to be fun!hmb wrote:Just reviewed this thread, and have the following comments. I am an elected prosecutor in Texas.
So, can you please reconcile this with your next sentence?Prosecutors follow the law, and not the wishes of those who sit on the sidelines.
And this?In my opinion, someone without a CHL who goes around the block to the local 7-11 and carries his pistol with him in his car is clearly NOT traveling, under any stretch of the imagination, and will be dealth with as such in our jurisdiction.
If prosecutors simply follow the law, as you've said you do, then you won't be prosecuting anyone for UCW if they meet the five elements of travelling. Right? Because despite your opinion, that is what the law says.Comment 2: "The way I understand it is no matter where you are going, as long as you meet the 5 items above, you are good to go."
Don't think so. See Comment 1, above. Wishful thinking on the part of some will not make it so.
But it very conveniently matches what has been said by the people who did make the law.Comment 4: "There is now a presumption of traveling if you meet 5 criteria. If you meet those 5 you ARE traveling PERIOD. If you are traveling, then 46.02 does not apply to you, PERIOD." The person who wrote this did not make the law.
The only "mess" is if prosecutors pursue charges of UCW against someone despite the law.By the way, we got in this mess, with the 5 steps, etc., because of the Legislature.
But otherwise, yes, you're quite correct, the Legislature produces lots of messes, and frequently makes bigger messes with their attempts at correction.
Kevin