Driving around with my gun without a CHL. In plain English.

[propellerhead]

Let me see if I can help...

Thanks. This confirms my understanding and puts me at ease.

[nitrogen]

Let me see if I can help.

Texas makes no law distinction between loaded and unloaded. Period.

Yet another thing my CHL instructor told me that proved to be inaccurate.

Thanks for the clarification

[Diode]

DIdin't mean to hit a nerve, just trying to understand. This place is a wealth of info.

[gigag04]

DIdin't mean to hit a nerve, just trying to understand. This place is a wealth of info.

No nerves hit I don't think on anyones part. We're all just trying to share info - sorry if I came across as anything more aggressive than that. +1 on the wealth of info!

[propellerhead]

Case law has established that on r about your person means within your immediate access, and includes the passanger compartment of motor vehicles. Locked in your trunk is NOT "about your person", so if you keep a handgun in your trunk you are not in violation of unlawful carrying weapons.

So in a pickup, you just put the gun in a locked case as far away from the driver?

[Diode]

DIdin't mean to hit a nerve, just trying to understand. This place is a wealth of info.

No nerves hit I don't think on anyones part. We're all just trying to share info - sorry if I came across as anything more aggressive than that. +1 on the wealth of info!

I understand, thank you! Keep up the good work. Some of theis stuff takes time to soak in. I think I get it. :)

[rodnocker1]

It may be kind of late to be posting on this thread. It is just as TX stated about traveling-there is no stipulation defining "Traveling". There used to be a vague set of standards having to do with number of county lines crossed, spending the night, and such as this but they are no more. According to the DPS in our area (different areas may feel differently), you can have your handgun under the fold down console of your front seat or in a door pocket as long as they are completely out of sight. According to them, a gun in a locked case wouldn't be much protection if someone comes up and tries to car-jack you and if traveling, you aren't in violation of UCW. If the officer can see the weapon or it becomes visible when you open your door to get out, you "MAY" be cited. They said that they have been instructed to ask if you have any illegal weapons in the car and as long as you meet the 5 points Tx listed, you should answer "NO" because you are legally in possession of the weapon. They said that you should also not allow a vehicle search for a simple traffic stop. They said the same thing as Tx about the overzealous Prosecutors along with Sheriffs, Deputys, Constables, etc. who have been instructed by those Prosecutors to cite or arrest people for this. The subject of whether having to get a CHL is constitutional or not (i.e.-a violation of our Second Amendment Rights along with having to pay to exercise that right) has been argued back and forth on other forums. It's best to just get the CHL. Even with the CHL, the weapon has to be concealed and not in sight.

[txinvestigator]

It may be kind of late to be posting on this thread. It is just as TX stated about traveling-there is no stipulation defining "Traveling". There used to be a vague set of standards having to do with number of county lines crossed, spending the night, and such as this but they are no more.

Great post, but one small correction;

Those vague set of rules never really existed. What people referred to were court cases. I don't believe, and Charles correct me if I am wrong, that Texas ever established case law on traveling. That would mean an appelate court would rule on a conviction from a lower court; thereby, establishing case law.

In Texas each UCW charge where a person claimed the traveling exception (and it used to be a defense to prosecution, where you had to PROVE you were traveling) was handled on its own merit in a court. The judge and jury were not bound to consider other court decisions regarding traveling.

In one case, a person may have been found not guilty when he offered a defense that he traveled across 3 counties in West Texas, while another person in a Dallas court could have been convicted for the same thing.

This new "presumption" in the law simply states that if you meet those 5 requirements you ARE traveling.

A person who does not meet those 5 elements COULD still be traveling, but that would be a more difficult fact for the person to establish.

If I, living in Dallas,(pretend I have no CHL) were stopped on I-45 about 1 hour north of Houston, and the LEO saw several suitcases, a pillow, etc, and I showed him a hotel reservation slip for Galveston and he discovered a handgun not concealed, it would be easy for him to believe I was traveling.

OTOH, if I, living in Collin County, drive to Tarrant County for work every day (that is across at least 3 counties) and I am stopped, it would be difficult to establish traveling without the presumption.

Make sense?

[lrb111]

OTOH, if I, living in Collin County, drive to Tarrant County for work every day (that is across at least 3 counties) and I am stopped, it would be difficult to establish traveling without the presumption.

Make sense?

My favorite examples out west are on HWY 115 west of Patricia. (It's north of Midland) There is an offset 4 corners of counties there. One can have been in 4 counties doing the speed limit in under 30 seconds. It's about a half mile.

Of course, in a county like Brewster or Pecos one could drive over 200 miles round trip and never leave the county.

[switch]

Where the confusion comes in:

Federal law says you can transport any weapon, from a place where it is lawful, to a place where it is lawful, provided it is unloaded and locked in the trunk or in a case. (It specifically excludes the glove box or a console).

TX does NOT differentiate between loaded or unloaded.

You instructor was probably providing the 'Federal' exception and you did not pick up that he was talking about Federal laws, not state laws.

NOTE: Some states 'ignore' the federal law. They have arrested people that drive to an airport and try to declare/ship their unloaded gun.

[Skipper5]

Hmmm, So my 3 handguns in my Range bag in my front floor board of my single cab Pick-up puts me in violation of the law.... interesting!

See above post on traveling.

But running to the range is not traveling....

No, running to the range is not traveling. It is traveling to or from a lawful sporting activity in which the hadgun is commonly used; therefore, you are exempt from UCW. Read my first post in this thread for a warning though.

tx....our CHL instructor...DallasPD - could be Dept. policy or just his feeling- defines "traveling" (he said really quite subjective) as " usually going through three counties" e.g. Dallas > Tyler, etc. Some counties in TX are as large as three smaller ones .....so kinda the equilivent distance.
Under his 'Range" intrepretation...if you were going to carry to the range...and are not a CHL....then have the gun in a range bag or secured in the trunk, loaded or not. If stopped, just inform the officer immediately of the weapon's location and your intentions of enroute to the range.

[hirundo82]

tx....our CHL instructor...DallasPD - could be Dept. policy or just his feeling- defines "traveling" (he said really quite subjective) as " usually going through three counties" e.g. Dallas > Tyler, etc. Some counties in TX are as large as three smaller ones .....so kinda the equilivent distance.
Under his 'Range" intrepretation...if you were going to carry to the range...and are not a CHL....then have the gun in a range bag or secured in the trunk, loaded or not. If stopped, just inform the officer immediately of the weapon's location and your intentions of enroute to the range.

The presumption of travelling if you meet the aforementioned 5 criteria was only passed in 2005. The three county rule or overnight trip was the rule of thumb before that, but there was apparently no legal definition. That was changed by the recent law. Basically, if you can legally possess the weapon and are in a private vehicle you are presumed to be travelling.

So if you took the CHL course before the law was changed (2005), your instructor may have been giving you what was the generally accepted rule at that time. In my understanding it no longer applies.

[txinvestigator]

Hmmm, So my 3 handguns in my Range bag in my front floor board of my single cab Pick-up puts me in violation of the law.... interesting!

See above post on traveling.

But running to the range is not traveling....

No, running to the range is not traveling. It is traveling to or from a lawful sporting activity in which the hadgun is commonly used; therefore, you are exempt from UCW. Read my first post in this thread for a warning though.

tx....our CHL instructor...DallasPD - could be Dept. policy or just his feeling- defines "traveling" (he said really quite subjective) as " usually going through three counties" e.g. Dallas > Tyler, etc. Some counties in TX are as large as three smaller ones .....so kinda the equilivent distance.
Under his 'Range" intrepretation...if you were going to carry to the range...and are not a CHL....then have the gun in a range bag or secured in the trunk, loaded or not. If stopped, just inform the officer immediately of the weapon's location and your intentions of enroute to the range.

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.

ALso, if you are engaged in a lawful sporting activity (handgun shooting on private property or a gun range) where the weapon is one commonly used in that activity (a handgun is commonly used in handgun shooting :) ) or TRAVELING TO OR FROM THE ACTIVITY, you are exempt from 46.02.


Texas Penal Code
§46.15. Nonapplicability.



(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:



(4) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting
activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or
is directly en route between the premises and the actor's residence,
if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

[hmb]

Just reviewed this thread, and have the following comments. I am an elected prosecutor in Texas.

Comment 1: "Be aware some lefty prosecutors have said they will still file on a person who meets those requirements."

I am certainly not a "lefty" prosecutor. In fact, I don't even know any "lefty" prosecutors. Most of the prosecutors around here are "mad dogs." Prosecutors follow the law, and not the wishes of those who sit on the sidelines. 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.

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.

Comment 3: "They said the same thing as Tx about the overzealous prosecutors along with Sheriffs, Deputys, Constables, etc., who have been instructed by these prosecutors to cite or arrest people for this."

Obviously a knee-jerk overreaction. Prosecutors are labeled overzealous if they do something you don't like. Prosecutors are fighting crime and putting away bad guys if the do something you DO like. The line between the two is very thin, sometimes. Most of the prosecutors I have met are decent, honest, underpaid, and hard working. None of us are perfect.

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. I certainly respect his right to express his opinion about what he thinks the law ought to be. Lord knows there are tons of laws that I as a prosecutor would like to change. You may accept his interpretation of what he thinks the law ought to be. But in the end, if a person violates the law on traveling, it will be the courts who decide what the law is, not those in the grandstand. By the way, we got in this mess, with the 5 steps, etc., because of the Legislature.

[KBCraig]

Just reviewed this thread, and have the following comments. I am an elected prosecutor in Texas.

Oh, boy. This is going to be fun!

Prosecutors follow the law, and not the wishes of those who sit on the sidelines.

So, can you please reconcile this with your next sentence?

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.

And this?

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.

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 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.

But it very conveniently matches what has been said by the people who did make the law.

By the way, we got in this mess, with the 5 steps, etc., because of the Legislature.

The only "mess" is if prosecutors pursue charges of UCW against someone despite the law.

But otherwise, yes, you're quite correct, the Legislature produces lots of messes, and frequently makes bigger messes with their attempts at correction.

Kevin