Anything new on the subject? Any cases tossed out, or convictions obtained by folks claiming the traveling exemption?


Curious to know if my agency is the only one 'business as usual' for UCW arrests with handguns and no CHL...

Thanks for bringing this up again. It is no secret that the intent of this law is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun in their car/truck. The officers at my agency are enforcing it as intended. Namely, not making UCW arrests for a handgun concealed in a vehicle when the occupants are not gang members and not violating a law. "Business as usual" flouts the plain intent of the law.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boyd Kennedy:
Thanks for bringing this up again. It is no secret that the intent of this law is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun in their car/truck. The officers at my agency are enforcing it as intended. Namely, not making UCW arrests for a handgun concealed in a vehicle when the occupants are not gang members and not violating a law. "Business as usual" flouts the plain intent of the law.

---

Yeah I understand the exemption. There are quite a few agencies that are still filing UCW. I just go case by case when I find a handgun.

As a side note, I think it's a stupid. It encourages people to load up their .357, go shopping at their local car-burglar-buffet, leaving their gun in the car for vehicle burglars to steal.

In my opinion The state should have added another section to the law where it's a crime leaving a firearm in a vehicle, unsecured. Then we would have no problem with this "Traveling" definition. Many Officers don't believe "Traveling" is driving to the local SacNpack, 1.2 Miles from home.

Acting in that manner, and basically disregarding the law or ignoring it, can only lead to a civil rights lawsuit being filed against you and/or your agency.

If you do not possess the necessary FACTS to defeat the presumption, then, in my humble opinion, you are making a bogus arrest. It is one thing to have a warrant to back your actions up (with all the legal protections it entails), but it is another to make a warrantless arrest with NO legal protections -- especially without any legal justification. Thats just asking for trouble, my friend.

It seems to me that the clear intent of the legislature was to allow people to carrying guns in their vehicles wherever they go without them having to go through the hassle of getting a permit and whatnot.

Yeah I understand civil rights. I'm about as pro-gun as they come. I own a machinegun, several sound suppressors and other BATFE regulated NFA firearms, so I don't need a lecture about false arrests and gun rights. I probably know more about gun laws than most in here.

Back to the subject. Most agencies are still filing UCW charges, however I haven't contacted anyone on the job with out the TX-CHL in quite a while. Maybe folks are using common sense, and if they are going to carry a pistol, to get the CHL. To me it makes sense to spend a few hundred dollars, to prevent having to defend yourself against an anti-gun Officer in court, even if you are innocent of the charges.

The "traveling" exemption ends when you step out of your vehicle, correct?. There's no provision in the law for you to walk from your vehicle which many park in the street, into your house with the handgun on your belt or in your pocket, just to mention ONE example of where you'd be violating UCW law. Now is an Officer going to enforce UCW in this case? I don't know, it depends, as it would with myself on the situation, and why I'm even contacting the person..etc.


I still think the law change is a lousy one, and encourages people to leave guns in their cars, which is one of the most irresponsible things gun owners ( including COPS ) do. My agency takes numerous stolen firearm AND badge/ID reports. Regardless of the reason for it, there's no excuse in any case, in my opinion.

As far as your warrant less arrest scenario goes, whats to say an agency doesnt keep the firearm as evidence, release the suspect and file the charges at large? Would you still consider the event to be what you call a violation of someones civil rights? I tell you what, If I make it to retirement WITHOUT having a civil rights case filed against me, for doing my job in good faith, I will be surprised and relieved this day in age when nobody takes responsibility for their actions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RTC:
Acting in that manner, and basically disregarding the law or ignoring it, can only lead to a civil rights lawsuit being filed against you and/or your agency.

If you do not possess the necessary FACTS to defeat the presumption, then, in my humble opinion, you are making a bogus arrest. It is one thing to have a warrant to back your actions up (with all the legal protections it entails), but it is another to make a warrantless arrest with NO legal protections -- especially without any legal justification. Thats just asking for trouble, my friend.

It seems to me that the clear intent of the legislature was to allow people to carrying guns in their vehicles wherever they go without them having to go through the hassle of getting a permit and whatnot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TX-LEO:
The "traveling" exemption ends when you step out of your vehicle, correct?. There's no provision in the law for you to walk from your vehicle which many park in the street, into your house with the handgun on your belt or in your pocket, just to mention ONE example of where you'd be violating UCW law. Now is an Officer going to enforce UCW in this case? I don't know, it depends, as it would with myself on the situation, and why I'm even contacting the person..etc.

---

[/QUOTE]

The new law no longer applies once the person leaves the car. However, the original traveling law is still in effect, so a person can still be traveling if their journey hasn't ended yet, even if on foot.

Also, the old court cases stated it is legal to carry a handgun more or less directly from one place where it is legal (ex.: the shop you just bought it at) to another legal place (ex.: home). It seems to me the same logic might apply to the person who parks his car in the street and walks directly to their home. Maybe the courts will get all this sorted out, but I am not holding my breath.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boyd Kennedy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TX-LEO:
The "traveling" exemption ends when you step out of your vehicle, correct?. There's no provision in the law for you to walk from your vehicle which many park in the street, into your house with the handgun on your belt or in your pocket, just to mention ONE example of where you'd be violating UCW law. Now is an Officer going to enforce UCW in this case? I don't know, it depends, as it would with myself on the situation, and why I'm even contacting the person..etc.

---

---

The new law no longer applies once the person leaves the car. However, the original traveling law is still in effect, so a person can still be traveling if their journey hasn't ended yet, even if on foot.

Also, the old court cases stated it is legal to carry a handgun more or less directly from one place where it is legal (ex.: the shop you just bought it at) to another legal place (ex.: home). It seems to me the same logic might apply to the person who parks his car in the street and walks directly to their home. Maybe the courts will get all this sorted out, but I am not holding my breath.
[/QUOTE]


Exactly why folks need to rely on the CHL statute, instead of a still vague traveling law that many dont understand, and rightfully so since it's written so lousy.

Quote:

"A person is not a traveler unless he is on an overnight trip, still in the course of the journey, and has not reached his destination."

I distinctly remember a case out there where the person DID NOT actually stay overnight at some destination and the court of appeals still found a valid "Traveling" defense.

The biggest problem here is that the legislature has never defined the word "traveling". I do not expect them to ever define that word.

My advice to officers is to strike up a conversation and find out the "where from" and "going to" and "why" answers.
I also tell everyone that if it weren't for the Second Amendment, we wouldn't have any others.

Any thoughts on this....the part of the presumption discussing "not otherwise engaged in criminal activity" reads: "other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of law or ordinance regulating traffic."

My question if I can make it clear: Does that mean only traffic regulation violations (whether laws or ordinances) or does it mean any law that is a Class C misdemeanor in addition to any ordinance that regulates traffic?

The reason this matters: I have a 17 year old pulled over for no trailer lights. But, the 17 year old has beer and cigarettes (both of which are Class Cs for possession but are not traffic offenses.) The 17 year old also has a .44 pistol, a .22 pistol, 2 knives that are 6 and a half inches long (and some other shotguns and ammo).

So, I want to read the statute to say that the presumption is only for traffic violations, whether laws or ordinances. The defense attorney wants the interpretation that the presumption encompasses all Class Cs--possessions as well as traffic offenses.

THoughts?

I read "laws or ordinances" to modify the clause "regulating traffic," so if it's just a traffic violation, then traveling applies, but if it's any other class C, then the defense is gone.

I think the defense attorney is grasping at straws.

I agree with Gretchen. The law isn't "Class C offense OR a violation of a law regulating traffic." I think it's pretty clear that you have to have a Class C traffic violation for the presumption to still apply. If you're just speeding or running a stop sign, you can keep your weapon. But anything else, Class C or otherwise, you lose the presumption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by suzannejost:
Any thoughts on this....the part of the presumption discussing "not otherwise engaged in criminal activity" reads: "other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of law or ordinance regulating traffic."

My question if I can make it clear: Does that mean only traffic regulation violations (whether laws or ordinances) or does it mean any law that is a Class C misdemeanor in addition to any ordinance that regulates traffic?

The reason this matters: I have a 17 year old pulled over for no trailer lights. But, the 17 year old has beer and cigarettes (both of which are Class Cs for possession but are not traffic offenses.) The 17 year old also has a .44 pistol, a .22 pistol, 2 knives that are 6 and a half inches long (and some other shotguns and ammo).

So, I want to read the statute to say that the presumption is only for traffic violations, whether laws or ordinances. The defense attorney wants the interpretation that the presumption encompasses all Class Cs--possessions as well as traffic offenses.

THoughts?

---

A 17 year old can not possess a handgun or any other firearm without written consent from a parent.

www.cop-talk.net

Thanks for all the input.

So far as I can tell, we never got an appellate court interpretation of 2.05(b)(1) in the context of the former presumption about traveling. Did no one get a conviction under the 2005 UCW law that was appealed?

Reason for my question is that I now have a case involving the new defense presumption under 9.32(b) concerning reasonableness of use of deadly force, which frankly is more troubling than the traveling presumption. I am wishing they had repealed or at least clarified 2.05(b)(1), as well, either in 2007 or 2009.

I was just curious to see if anymore has been said on this bill i deliver pizzas for a second job and my town is becoming increasingly more violent, I looked into getting a CHL but i owe back child support that i have been paying off, but cannot recieve a CHL till paid off. So I was just wanted to know if i should fear prosecution for carrying my pistol for slef defense in case of a robbery? god forbid.

Les

Welcome to the TDCAA Bulletin Boards. The discussions in these user forums are for the benefit of prosecutors and their staff members, although we welcome relevant and appropriate input from other members of the criminal justice and government lawyer community. The opinions expressed on this forum are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of TDCAA, its staff, or any other member of the association. These forums are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. Call the State Bar of Texas (800/204-2222) for information on seeking legal advice.