TexasCHLforum.com

Lawyers and judges need something to keep them busy.

- Jim

The problem with PC § 30.01 is that it begins, "DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: ..." that is, Chapter 30.

PC § 46.02 specifically says "inside of ... a motor vehicle."

As I said earlier, being on a motorcycle is frequently considered as being in a motor vehicle, but I am not aware of a statute or case law that would make that principle explicitly applicable to PC 46.02.

I am also keeping in mind that every peace officer in Texas has been trained since day 1 that carrying a handgun without a CHL is illegal. Many never accepted the traveling presumption that was in effect from 2005 to 2007, and I am not confident that all will accept the 2007 law until their DAs tell them to stop arresting motorists. This is my personal opinion, which of course I cannot prove.

PC § 46.15 has made 46.02 inapplicable to travelers since the current statutes were codified, and travelers were exempt from previous weapons bans under whatever code was in effect at the time. That means real travelers, such as someone going from San Antonio to Waco.

- Jim

somedudefromhouston wrote:who can clarify the regulation in the scenario of a motorcyclist ?

Welcome to the forum.

Only a judge can clarify how the law applies to motorcycles.

Being on a motorcycle is legally equivalent to being in a motor vehicle for other legal purposes, such as the open container law. Traveling could also apply. It really would be up to an officer to decide whether to arrest you for illegal carry. If that happens, you get the clarification.

- Jim

IMHO, IANAL, etc.: In a traffic stop, you are the subject of a criminal investigation. It is best not to volunteer any information in such a situation. Just answer truthfully any questions that the officer asks.

It is probably not a good idea to say the words, "I have a gun," to a LEO. You might want to say something along the lines of, "I am carrying a weapon lawfully."

- Jim

Liko81 wrote:Depends on the jurisdiction; you are still technically guilty of unlawful carry of a firearm unless you were heading directly between your car and home ...

That is true, but I never hear of it being prosecuted, with one exception: If a felon has a firearm and defends himself in such a way that he is not guilty of aggravated assault or murder, they will prosecute for felon in possession.

There was a case here a few months ago where a man shot himself with a pistol while walking on undeveloped land that he did not own. He initially reported that he was shot in a drive-by, but then admitted to shooting himself. He was not prosecuted either for making a false report or illegal carry. I asked a police officer that I know about it, and he said the DA's office just didn't want to bother, since the guy hurt only himself and was not otherwise committing a crime.

- Jim

eric wrote:Does this law mean non chl holders have the same rights as a holder with immunity from civil suits in case an incident occurs?

The only requirement for civil immunity is that your use of force or deadly force was justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

Someone who didn't have a CHL and was carrying illegally could have other legal problems, but prosecution is unusual in that case, in Texas.

- Jim

Here's the story on Harris County:

It has always been legal to carry a handgun while traveling. Traveling was never defined in the law, and case law is all over the place.

In 2005, the legislature added a clause that said you were presumed to be traveling if you were in a privately owned motor vehicle, the handgun was concealed, and some other qualifications that are irrelevant now.

The DA of Harris County, Chuck Rosenthal, was opposed to this legislation. After it became law, police in Harris County continued to arrest people who were caught with handguns in their vehicles. I don't know if any were prosecuted successfully or pled guilty. Several had charges dropped.

In 2007, the legislature made it completely legal to have a concealed handgun in your vehicle (as long as some other conditions were met), and scrapped the old traveling presumption. By the time that law went into effect, Mr. Rosenthal was rather busy with some personal problems, and he has since resigned.

I have heard nothing about how the new law is being handled in Harris Co.

- Jim