GunTalk-Online.com

I just heard that starting 9/1, a Texas law goes into effect that allows people to carry a handgun in their car. Before the law was obscure and stated you could carry one while "traveling" but traveling was not defined. I recall when we were able to get CCW licenses the charge went from a Misdomer to a felony. At that time I stopped carring my .357. Anyone else hear about this?

Jeff

J57ltr wrote:starting 9/1, a Texas law goes into effect that allows people to carry a handgun in their car.

It was my understanding back in the early summer, when it came
to a vote... that they changed the "definition of TRAVELING",
in that prior-times YOU had to "Prove you were Traveling",
but the Revision going into effect 1-Sep changes to put the
burden of proof on the 'D.A.' to prove you WERE NOT traveling.
The definition is still a little vague as to duration/distance/purpose,
BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE COMMUTING!

It would be nice to have a car being defined as a home,
permitting a carry by anyone to defend themselves as
we can in a home.

see the notice of 17June "Gov. signs ... legis" or Tx.HB-823
http://www.TSRA.com/

In my opinion the way to make sure you are not breaking a law and possibly suffer the conseauences is, spend the time and moneya nd take the course required in most states to qualify and then apply for your CCW as it is called her in Michigan and your are then legal. Old Michigan law allowed carry unloaded in a car if you were traveling to and from a registered range, but if you stopped for lunch on the way, you were technically breaking the law. So that I would not have a problem I got my CCW and can carry a loaded gun in the car or an my person in all places taht the law allow, ther are a few restrictions.

Uuntil I get my student loans squared away I can't get a CCW, but here is the text of the proposal.



H.B. No. 823




AN ACT

relating to the applicability of the offense of unlawful carrying
of weapons to certain persons and to the consequence of certain
presumptions in the prosecution of a criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed
to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other
than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined
by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.
SECTION 2. Section 2.05, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b), when [When] this code or another penal law
establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the
following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as
follows:
(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(B) that if such facts are proven beyond a
reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense
sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C) that even though the jury may find the
existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the
existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the
presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption
for any purpose.
(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a
presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it
has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the
presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do
not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the
presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to
whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the
jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.
SECTION 3. The changes in law made by this Act apply only to
an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered
by the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of
this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that
date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

I see a lot of "if, then..." statements in that new law. Probably the biggest thing I noticed is the "not carrying a handgun in plain sight," stipulation. Just looking at this law at face value, it appears to cover all the bases but there may be other laws that supplement this one, like defining what constitutes "plain sight" for handguns. Other restrictions may apply, I'm not well versed in Texas firearms laws.

R,
Bullseye

Bullseye wrote:what constitutes "plain sight" for handguns.

as "Dr.Phil" says, "I'm not a lawyer... and I'm NOT bragging...", but

Plain-Sight is another "judgement call".
if you're using an Open-Carry Side-Arm holster... WRONG.
if it's under your coat and a quick glance from the side
gave someone a momentary view... "probably not"...

Texas Government Code: GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS.
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun,
the presence of which is not openly discernible
to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

That's exactly what I mean. Sometimes only the lawyers can firgure these laws out - maybe. I know we are discussing Texas but these definitions vary greatly from state to state. Some states require anyone transporting fireams in a vehicle keep them enclosed in a locked hard case, inaccessible from the drivers compartment. And yet, there's others that say the firearm must be in plain view in the passenger compartment, fully empty and locked open.

While Texas has made great progress in eliminating firearm laws that conflict with each other, I'm sure there's still some out there that need ammending.

R,
Bullseye

These are all judgement calls. I once heard a Conservation officers opinion as we just write the ticket and let the judge interpret the law. Judges opinions do vary from state to state or even county to county.

Aug. 30, 2005, 1:35AM

DA opposed to new handgun law
Pistol-toting drivers without a permit will
still be prosecuted, Rosenthal warns
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Motorists arrested for carrying pistols in their cars
without a concealed handgun license will continue to be prosecuted
in Houston, despite a new law that purports to give them a legal
defense, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said Monday.

Although the sponsor said the law should reduce the number of
arrests for unlawful handgun possession, Rosenthal said it won't
change enforcement practices in Houston after it goes into effect
on Thursday.

"It is still going to be against the law for (unlicensed) persons
to carry handguns in autos," the district attorney said, adding
that the new legal defense can still be challenged by prosecutors.

The new law, enacted during the regular legislative session last
spring, seeks to clarify a longtime law that allowed Texans to
carry handguns while traveling, a qualification that was subject
to a number of inconsistent court interpretations over the years.

The new statute says a person is "resumed to be traveling"
if he or she is in a private vehicle, is not engaged in criminal
activity (except for a minor traffic offense), is not prohibited
by any other law from possessing a firearm and is not a member of
a criminal street gang.

It also requires the handgun to be concealed in the car, although
weapons can be discovered by officers during routine traffic stops
if a driver gives permission for a car to be searched or opens a
glove compartment where a gun is secured to retrieve an insurance
card or other documentation.

"The intent of the law is to keep innocent people from going to jail,"
said the sponsor, Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, a former prosecutor and
former Travis County sheriff who now is a candidate for the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals.

The law, House Bill 823, was supported by the National Rifle
Association and the American Civil Liberties Union and opposed by
various law-enforcement groups.

More than 237,000 Texans have concealed handgun licenses. But many
other law-abiding adults don't have licenses because they are
disqualified by exceptions that have nothing to do with public
safety, said Alice Tripp, a lobbyist for the TSRA - Texas State Rifle Association,
an NRA affiliate.

Tripp said people who have defaulted on student loans, who owe the
state sales tax or franchise tax payments or are behind in child
support payments are ineligible to receive a license.

Keel said he hoped the law will prompt police officers to think
twice about arresting motorists who meet the new legal presumption
and spare them the expense and "indignity" of arrest and prosecution.

Otherwise, he said, "They basically are going to arrest innocent
people and make them prove their innocence."

Rosenthal and Rob Kepple, executive director of the TDCAA
- Texas District and County Attorneys Association, disagreed.

Rosenthal said the new presumption about "traveling" doesn't
define what constitutes traveling and can be challenged in court by
prosecutors, leaving it to juries to decide verdicts "based upon the
facts of the case."

A prosecutor could summon witnesses to successfully argue that a
defendant wasn't traveling because he was simply "driving around
the corner for a carton of milk," Kepple said.

"I really don't think (the law) should affect how police officers
respond in arresting somebody," he added.

Houston Police Department spokeswoman Johanna Abad indicated Houston
police were going to take their advice from Rosenthal's office.

Unlawful possession of a weapon is a class A misdemeanor punishable
by as much as one year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. Rosenthal
said most cases are resolved through plea bargains.

The prosecutor said he asked Gov. Rick Perry to veto the bill because
"taking weapons off the street is a pretty good deal." He said his
office handled about 5,000 weapons cases of varying degrees of
severity last year.

Tripp called Rosenthal's opposition a case of "sour grapes ...
and a threat to the general public."

[email protected]
--end--

If it were me - I'd let someone else be the test case. Clearly there's some friction between the two offices that enacted this legislation and I wouldn't want to be caught in the middle as they fight it out.

R,
Bullseye

Bullseye wrote:If it were me - I'd let someone else be the test case. Clearly there's some friction between the two offices that enacted this legislation and I wouldn't want to be caught in the middle as they fight it out.

R,
Bullseye

Nor would I, don't think sitting in jail and wondering what is happening woulb be much fun, win or lose. That is one of the reasons I got a carry permit, now everything is legal.

I totally agree Len. Having a carry permit is the only safe bet. Like you, that is exactly why I have one. When I leave the range with weapons and ammo, I want to ensure these implements do not fall into the hands of someone who will use them illegally.

R,
Bullseye

Bullseye wrote:I totally agree Len. Having a carry permit is the only safe bet. Like you, that is exactly why I have one. When I leave the range with weapons and ammo, I want to ensure these implements do not fall into the hands of someone who will use them illegally.

R,
Bullseye

They will never get the ones in my pistol box while I have one in my pocdket readily available. Carry it in the open console when driveing as it would be difficult to obtain with the seat belt on. Had a gy ask me one time, is that gun loaded, told him that if it was not I could carry a rock or a brick a lot cheaper.

Michigan law allows carry unloaded in trunk or back of SUV unloaded to and from range, but technically if you stop for lunch on the way you have broken the law.
Like you say with the CCW your are lot better off legally.

The thing that really chaps my hide is that the only reason that I cannot carry is because of student loans I got behind on. I have been paying these things for nearly 6 years now and I still keep getting them telling me that oh well there was one that was missed and it's defaulted. It's worse than creditcards.

Chuck the DA is a hard azz here which is good in some cases, but assinine in other cases.

Some of the laws are just crazy. Leagally you can walk down the street with a shotgun and even into a bank, it's not smart but it's legal.

Jeff

This law was supposed to define "traveling" but hasn't really done anything. To me the law reads plain and clear. If you are of age, not a criminal you can carry a pistol in your car, but not in plain site. Some of my cop friends said that if they run a persons info and find that they are a good citizen then screw Chuck they aren't going to deal with it.

we're gonna git this thang figgered out... eventually... maybe...

http://www.tsra.com/HB823_MbrLtr.htm