TexasCHLforum.com

Greybeard wrote:
If a CHL holder, why not just show 'em both the DL and CHL and be done with it?

You're absolutely right Greybeard. I have a habit of being pedantic about the law. I was somewhat unpopular in the police academy because of this and my interest and prior knowledge of civil rights.

Regardless of how courteous one is during a traffic stop, (I have always informed the officer I was carrying and showed my out of state permit), I think its important to understand the subtlety of the law because its the subtlety that most officers don't understand and act upon.

Just recently, a guy returning from an annual shooting/bbq/camping gathering was stopped by Austin Park Police for a faulty license plate light. He had firearm parts in his back seat. He does not have a CHL recognized by the state of TX. He refused consent, they searched anyway and found two handguns under the seat.

He tried to plead the traveling (current interpretation) exemption and the officer stated the traveling exemption only applies if the firearms are in the trunk.

He will either get off on the historical traveling exemption or the sporting nonapplicability.

Regardless, the lack of understanding of the finer points of the law led to him spending some time in the Travis County jail, and his firearms won't be returned until after they are ballistically tested to see if they were used in a crime.

Please let us know what you hear from DPS.

Kevin, my point is that you shouldn't have to show that you are licensed while traveling, or carrying under any other exemption under the law, like on private property, or target shooting/hunting.

So, the way I understand that is if I have an out of state permit, and left it out of state, and that state has reciprocity with Texas, I must inform and show the peace officer the license I don't posess even though I am traveling.

????

The duty to inform is on a license holder. A license holder is defined as one licensed to carry a handgun under the act.

(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other
state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a
concealed handgun under which a license issued by the other state is
recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a
license issued by the other state is recognized in this state if the
attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background
check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is
conducted by state or local authorities or an agent of the state or
local authorities before the license is issued to determine the
applicants' eligibility to possess a firearm under federal law.

Is an out of state permit holder a license holder under texas law?

It was my understanding that HB823 (definition of traveling) was passed by the legislature, but was not signed yet by the governor and therefore not the law yet...

DFC, I apologize for saying you were hijacking the thread, I did not realize you were talking about the traveling exemption in your scenario.

No offense DFC, but it is considered impolite to hijack a thread by posting on a tangent.

Regardless, my thought is that perhaps you can circumvent the signs by transporting the firearm unloaded and not within reach, ie in the trunk.

The point being that you are not carrying under the authority of the CHL law.

I realize this complicates getting access to the handgun, and you wouldn't be able to strap it on as soon as you get into the car.

Edit: After reading a few other posts on the message board, my understanding has muddied. Perhaps Charles can comment if 'premise' under 30.06 includes the parking lot or not, even if the 30.06 is posted at the entrance of the parking lot.

Being that a first offense for failure to notify is a non arrestable, administrative suspension only. (and I argue all failure to notify violations are non arrestable, unless the officer has knowledge that you were previously suspended).

Could one risk not informing the officer, and only be in jeopardy of the administrative suspension? Then any appeal would be against the administrative suspension and not a criminal charge.

I realize that the officer would know if the registered owner has a CHL, and might ask if you were carrying a firearm. You could say no, or you could say yes, but I am traveling. :)

Alternatively, you could leave your CHL at home while driving. Officer pulls you over, runs your plate and knows you have a CHL. How can they argue that you are carrying under the CHL statute if you do not have the CHL in your posession as you must in order to be afforded its protection?

Either you choose not to carry the CHL, and fall under traveling, or you carry it, and choose not to fall under its protection by not following its rules.

I would expect the courts to rely on *any* available statute that removes jeopardy, versus, relying on the one that imposes it and ignoring all others.

Since HB 823 defines traveling as:

(1) in a private motor vehicle
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity
(3) not prohibited by law from posession
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view

Does it remove the established case law that would not have the above restrictions?

For example, prior to HB 823, traveling is only defined under case law, and includes a number of requirements, such as multi-county trips, overnight trips, going to the gunsmith, etc.

It is my understanding that open carry while traveling was ok under the previous case law. Such as open carrying is now legal under the sporting exemption.

( I use exemption, because right this second I don't remember if it was an exception or defense to prosecution.)

Since all the previous case law was based on the vacuum of legislative definition, would the passing of HB 823, wipe out all the previous case law?

Additionally, if one fell under the traveling exemption as defined under HB 823 AND the person had a CHL. Would they not be required to inform an officer they were carrying during a traffic stop? I believe the law states that you must inform while carrying under the CHL statute and the officer 'demands' your identification. Since you could be carrying under the traveling exemption, and not the CHL statute, you would not be required to notify. Such as you would not be required to notify while on your premise, or if you were a peace officer who also had a CHL.

What do ya'll think?