TexasCHLforum.com

HB1815, Motorist Protection Act just passed the House. Now it's on to the Senate where Senator Hinojosa will shephard it through the process. Time is running short, but Chuy is the guy to get it done!

This is the bill that finally ends the decades long "traveling" problem by changing the law so that it is not illegal to have a handgun in your car. There will be a separate violation for having a handgun in your car, if it isn't concealed, or if you are 1) a gang member; 2) engaging in illegal activity other than traffic violations; or 3) prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm.

Chas.

Was just going to ask about this....

Thanks for posting this.

This is really great news. Even though many of us have CHL's, we do have family members who may not and this will be of great aid and convenience to them and to the vast majority of law abiding gun owners.

The added benefit of it being a slap in the face to those "write their own law" DA's is only a bonus. Lagniappe, as they say in New Orleans.


I have been concerned about this bill being unpassed so late in the session.

Charles-
Thank you for posting this and for all of the updates you have provided throughout this legislative session. You have updated the 2007 legislative updates thread 61 times!

This portion of the forum has become very valuable to me. Thank you!

Can we send a thank you card to the Rosenthal when this is signed by the Governor?

jbirds1210 wrote:Can we send a thank you card to the Rosenthal when this is signed by the Governor?

Sympathy card, with little violins.

- Jim

137 to 0

That was the vote with 2 present, not voting

So if I'm reading the bill correctly, this also allows us to carry a club or "illegal knife" in our vehicle.

Is my interpretation correct?

I believe this will send a clear message to Chuck...(Rosenthal)

He's either going to be very quiet about this, or surprise some of us by crying on the radio somewhere next week about it...

I hope someone in the local Houston market calls him in for a interview and asks him directly about it...

We deserve to hear his opinion, and what he's going to instruct his deputies to do...He was really outspoken about this back in 2005, I would like to give him the chance to be as outspoken in 2007...

hirundo82 wrote:So if I'm reading the bill correctly, this also allows us to carry a club or "illegal knife" in our vehicle.

Is my interpretation correct?

Correct.

Chas.

Someone please explain:

This would seem to clear up the issue right here:

Sec. 46.02 (a) A person commits an offense if the person [he]
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the
person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control. ...(followed by exceptions)

But then the next section includes this:

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

(2) is traveling;

Can we hope that the traveling clause can be eliminated before passage?

As long as the ill-defined 'traveling' exists, it will be open to misinterpretation.

Mike1951 wrote:Can we hope that the traveling clause can be eliminated before passage?

As long as the ill-defined 'traveling' exists, it will be open to misinterpretation.

Traveling still applies to people who are not in motor vehicles. How about someone who is traveling cross-country by bicycle?

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:So if I'm reading the bill correctly, this also allows us to carry a club or "illegal knife" in our vehicle.

Is my interpretation correct?

Correct.

Chas.

From the House Committe Report: "C.S.H.B.1815 would make it clear that a person has a right to carry a handgun, club or certain knives on the person’s own premises or premises under his control, or inside of, or en route, to a motor vehicle under the person’s control."

OK, I overlooked other than a motor vehicle.

But after decades of confusion, why don't they define traveling?

I still think wrong minded DA's will try to say that both sections have to apply. to still bring the undefined 'traveling' back into it.

seamusTX wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:Can we hope that the traveling clause can be eliminated before passage?

As long as the ill-defined 'traveling' exists, it will be open to misinterpretation.

Traveling still applies to people who are not in motor vehicles. How about someone who is traveling cross-country by bicycle?

- Jim

Correct. The "traveling" exception was intentionally left in the Code to be available to anyone traveling by a method other than a private motor vehicle. Also, the traveling "presumption" was repealed to prevent any ambiguity.

Chas.

Mike1951 wrote:OK, I overlooked other than a motor vehicle.

But after decades of confusion, why don't they define traveling?

I still think wrong minded DA's will try to say that both sections have to apply. to still bring the undefined 'traveling' back into it.

Both sections do apply, but having a gun in your car simply isn't illegal any longer, if HB1815 passes. Not even Rosenthal can twist this one!

Chas.