TexasCHLforum.com

While looking for something else, I ran across a couple court cases on the definition of "traveling" as it existed -- or didn't -- in Texas law prior to the Motorist Protection Act. Thought some might be interested in old news, given the number of times it was discussed. A gentleman put together a list of state cases regarding gun laws, and gives each a brief description. I include Mr. Bardwell's descriptions ...

A quote from one of the cases:

The "traveler" exception in the statute has been described as "one of the most enigmatic provisions of the prior weapons offense."

1994: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... _state.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matocha vs. State of Texas
In this case a Texas appeals court reverses a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, where the trial judge refused to instruct the jury on the defense of being a "traveler". The court rejects the argument that a trip must be at least overnight to bring a person within the defense. The court states that it was up to the jury to decide if the defendant, who carried a pistol with him while on his job as a repairman, who traveled through several counties, and for fairly long distances, on his job.

From 1982: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... _state.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Smith vs State of Texas
In this case construing the meaning of "traveler" in the Texas statute permitting travelers to carry handguns on their person, the court decides that the defendant was not a traveler. He had taken his pistol with him when he went fishing, and then came back to town to go to work. While leaving work, to go to his girlfriend's house, he was stopped and the gun was discovered still in the passenger compartment of his car.

From 1966: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... _state.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kyles vs. State of Texas
In this brief case, the Texas appeal court upholds a trial court decision finding the defendant was not a "traveler" permitted to carry handguns in his car. He had traveled from North Carolina to Texas with some guns, as part of some attempt to reconcile with his estranged wife. The court decided that as he was found with the guns well after arriving at his wife's home in Dallas, he was no longer on a trip that would make him a traveler within the statute.

From 1898: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... _state.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bain vs State of Texas
In this 1898 case, the Texas court decides that a person going a distance of 35 miles, and staying overnight, is a "traveler" under a statute permitting travelers to carry firearms on their person. The court notes that traveler is not defined by the statute, and while they will not construe it be any person going from one place to another, given that the legislature decided not define it, they will call the trip in this case sufficient to make the defendant a "traveler".

The list of all the state cases he has gathered is here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardw ... cases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There are some interesting ones. If you prowl the site, he has similar list of SCOTUS cases.

This is great ELB! Thanks for resurrecting your corrupted file! I'll bet that was a chore!

It makes for interesting reading as historical documents, but is it really relevant to today's law's, noting the recent changes? Other than trying to precisely define what a "traveler" is, I mean.

Yes, the definition of what a travelr is and how it is applied can still be very important. The MPA did not change the definition of what a traveler is. It changed the actual elements of the offense. The traveler exception still applies.

So, how can the traveler definition be important? Well, there are ways to travel besides a car that is owned by you or under your control. Say that you are a passenger in my car as we drive from San Antonio to Dallas. The MPA would not protect you, but the traveler exception might. Or you might make some mistake and let the weapon show instead of staying concealed. Or you are driving and stop for gas and forget to take the weapon off.

So, the traveler exception could still be very important. Learning how the courts have applied it may one day save you (and I hope your attorney knows this too). And, as far as I know, the pre-eminent case on this was from 1909 (but I could not find the citation just now in a few minutes search). In this case the Court of Criminal Appeals lamented asking the legislature to define the term and said that until they do, whether or not a person is a traveler is a fact to be determined by the jury.

As an aside to that, in the brief review of the cases I just did, I found that many of the cases dealt with whether or not the instructions to the jury included this defense. It seems like a judge not allowing this instruction is the quickest way to get a case overturned when this defense was raised.

Bain vs State of Texas
In this 1898 case, the Texas court decides that a person going a distance of 35 miles, and staying overnight, is a "traveler" under a statute permitting travelers to carry firearms on their person.

Consider that a 35 mile trip in 1898 might equate to a 500 mile trip today. Both would amount to a day's travel.

Mike1951 wrote:

Bain vs State of Texas
In this 1898 case, the Texas court decides that a person going a distance of 35 miles, and staying overnight, is a "traveler" under a statute permitting travelers to carry firearms on their person.

Consider that a 35 mile trip in 1898 might equate to a 500 mile trip today. Both would amount to a day's travel.

I looked at that case, and the court said they would not define "traveler", but that in that case, it seemed the defendant was indeed a traveler.

I would like to know if there's any truth to the legendary (or mythical) Roy Bean ruling: that if the person is standing still, he's not carrying; if he's moving, he's traveling.

Read the book:
A Matter Of Personal Protection Incorporating The Weapons And Self-Defense Laws Of Texas - by Doug Briggs
I carried for years before the defition of traveling was defined

you are driving and stop for gas and forget to take the weapon off.

Well now, this is a good point, exclusive of the Motorist Protection Act, which applies to weapons inside a vehicle. The legal precept of a traveler being exempt from violation must include everything her or she does outside of their vehicle so long as it supports the act of traveling or encompasses that activity and occurs in between or at the points of departure and destination. Consequently, a definition of what constitutes traveling would be critical to someone from Houston, say, enroute to Austin and arrested outside their vehicle while eating dinner at the Bon Ton in LaGrange with a concealed handgun and no permit. The fact is, they are still a traveler who is in the act of traveling, which necessarily includes stopping at times. Another stupid hoop to jump through.

joe817 wrote:This is great ELB! Thanks for resurrecting your corrupted file! I'll bet that was a chore!

It makes for interesting reading as historical documents, but is it really relevant to today's law's, noting the recent changes? Other than trying to precisely define what a "traveler" is, I mean.

Thank you. Altho I am still working on reconstituting the file of "Gun Free School Zone" cases ...I did find the traveling cases while doing this.

In the same list of cases there is a case on manslaughter being raised to murder because of the use of a Bowie knife (this was an element of the law). Interesting argument by the State on how ferocious a Bowie is.

And srothstein did a bang up job answering your question. I hadn't thought of the traveling exemption as still being important, but he explained that well.

Many thanks ELB & srothstein for broadening my knowledge base of CHL, guns & the law.

casingpoint wrote:

you are driving and stop for gas and forget to take the weapon off.

Well now, this is a good point, exclusive of the Motorist Protection Act, which applies to weapons inside a vehicle. The legal precept of a traveler being exempt from violation must include everything her or she does outside of their vehicle so long as it supports the act of traveling or encompasses that activity and occurs in between or at the points of departure and destination. Consequently, a definition of what constitutes traveling would be critical to someone from Houston, say, enroute to Austin and arrested outside their vehicle while eating dinner at the Bon Ton in LaGrange with a concealed handgun and no permit. The fact is, they are still a traveler who is in the act of traveling, which necessarily includes stopping at times. Another stupid hoop to jump through.

If you get your CHL this isn't a concern. Just a thought.

joe817 wrote:It makes for interesting reading as historical documents, but is it really relevant to today's law's, noting the recent changes? Other than trying to precisely define what a "traveler" is, I mean.

Already been answered, but just for other examples, I might be backpacking, cycling, or canoeing and make the argument that I'm "traveling."

chabouk wrote:I would like to know if there's any truth to the legendary (or mythical) Roy Bean ruling: that if the person is standing still, he's not carrying; if he's moving, he's traveling.

Don't know if it's true or not, but I certainly like that line of thinking.