TexasCHLforum.com

shooter_tx wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote: Does Travelling Constitute my commute?

If you commute by car, then the "traveling" defense is irrelevant; you can have a gun in your car. If you commute by bicycle, or some other non-motor vehicle mode of travel, then you'll have to look to the case law for your appellate jurisdiction. A short commute that doesn’t cross a county line has no chance of being held to be “traveling.�

Chas.

But what chance do you think it has of being presumed to be traveling?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're talking about the "traveling presumption" that passed in 2005 (HB823), then it has been repealed with the passage of HB1815.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:What I find itneresting is that the there is still a traveling provision.

The "traveling" defense was left in the statute for people who travel by means other than a motor vehicle. This could be any method of travel such as walking, horseback, canoe, or bicycle.

Liberty wrote:While things like getting out of a car and carrying into the premises to pay for a gas or getting a meal at a MacDonalds isn't clarified. We haven't lost any ground here either.

I agree, but although the bill addresses being directly en route to your vehicle, I believe it is implicit that you have to be walking from some location where it is legal for you to have a handgun to your car. An example would be walking from your business to your car, or from a shooting range to your car, etc. I would not recommend trying to get out of your car to pay for gas or buy something in the local stop-n-rob and rely upon HB1815. The Bill Analysis and the testimony by it's author makes it clear that legislative intent is to allow people to have a handgun in their car - nothing more.

Liberty wrote:This is a pretty big step, but I think the traveling provision in Section 46.15 still needs to be defined at some point.

I agree, but it's not going to happen. The legislature doesn't want to touch it. The opinions are as diverse as the court cases.

Liberty wrote:Does it cover those stopping and paying for gas in the premises?
Does it cover going into MacDonalds for lunch?

No, as discussed above.

Liberty wrote:Does Travelling Constitute my commute?

If you commute by car, then the "traveling" defense is irrelevant; you can have a gun in your car. If you commute by bicycle, or some other non-motor vehicle mode of travel, then you'll have to look to the case law for your appellate jurisdiction. A short commute that doesn’t cross a county line has no chance of being held to be “traveling.�

Chas.

Penal statutes must be crafted such that they establish prohibited conduct, they don't establish what a person can do. Exempting certain conduct or actions from otherwise prohibited conduct are where defenses and exceptions come into play.

HB1815 narrows the scope of unlawful carrying of a weapon (UCW) such that having a handgun in your car is not a violation of the penal code. That is clear. It is a violation to carry a handgun in your car if you are engaged in criminal activity, are prohibited from possessing firearms, if you are a member of a criminal street gang, or if the gun is in plain view, but this is the subject of proposed 46.02(A-1). 46.02 remains clear - having a handgun in your car is no more unlawful than shaking hands with your neighbor.

Remember, the goal of HB1815 is to allow people to have a handgun in their cars, not to allow people to walk around with them without a CHL. The goal also is not to allow anyone and everyone to bring a handgun into your car, without a CHL. If the Bill was broad enough to cover these actions as well, then it would not pass. This is a big step toward unlicensed carry, but it is just that - a step. I don't see repeal of 46.02 anytime soon. Only a few short years ago, car-carry without a CHL was a distant dream, but now it may be a reality. At one time I thought repeal of 46.02 was not possible, now I believe it is only “highly unlikely.�

Chas.

Don't worry about the committee substitute; it will contain the original language I/we proposed and it will be fine. In fact, it needs to be in the bill to avoid a problem.

Chas.