TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting article. I am a little surprised at the pro-gun attitude from Plano, PD. Not surprised at the anti-gun attitude from Dallas PD (We're letting drug dealers with Glocks under the seat go and say have a nice day), and Dallas County DA.

Claiming it make the CHL law obsolete is kind of narrow minded.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-10-2 ... ill-travel

Dallas Observer? Trash not worthy of my garbage can!

Added my comment about two particularly silly statements.

Errors in the article, both by the reporter and apparently by some of the people that were interviewed are too numerous to list.

Typical pathetic excuse for "journalism" that is all too often what one expects these days.

I'm surprised that Dallas PD hasn't set up training on all the changes to the law that took effect last SEP-01.

(We're letting drug dealers with Glocks under the seat go and say have a nice day),

Does he have a pathological inability to tell the truth or is he really that stupid?

It's still a crime to carry in a car if someone is

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

and actual drug dealers are usually at least one of the above.

boomerang wrote:

(We're letting drug dealers with Glocks under the seat go and say have a nice day),

Does he have a pathological inability to tell the truth or is he really that stupid?

It's still a crime to carry in a car if someone is

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

and actual drug dealers are usually at least one of the above.

Although I fully support the new laws,but there are costs associated with freedom. Is the information that is radioed that reliable, about past charges and convictions. I can understand an LEO not being happy about letting some seemingly punkish kid go that is tooling around with a gun in his car. as I said the price of freedom.

the part about belonging to a gang sounds good, but taking it to court and proving it would seem difficult. While the gangsters mark themselves up with tats and clothing styles. They don't exactly register the group at the county courthouse either.

Most of the "comments" following the article seemed to help straghten out some of the many errors. Sadly, the article itself though will probably perpetuate much of the misinformation with those who don't investigate further ...

I've had lots of students coming through hunter ed. classes this time of year, many with questions and comments about the new handgun laws. It's sometimes disheartening all of the misinformation that's out there, even among "gun people" ... And it's often initiated by poorly-researched articles such as this one.

Liberty wrote:Although I fully support the new laws,but there are costs associated with freedom. Is the information that is radioed that reliable, about past charges and convictions. I can understand an LEO not being happy about letting some seemingly punkish kid go that is tooling around with a gun in his car. as I said the price of freedom.

If the person with a gun in the car also has illegal drugs, they're engaged in criminal activity more serious than a traffic violation, and the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If the person with a gun in the car is a convicted felon, I think they're prohibited by Texas and/or US law from possessing a firearm, and the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If "the handgun is in plain view" the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If the person with a gun in the car is Black, or the police officer doesn't like his fashion sense, that's not a sufficient reason to deny his right to keep and bear arms. Neither of those makes a kid a drug dealer either.
If the guy is really a drug dealer and that was proved (or can be proved) in a court of law, the police officer can still arrest him for having a gun in the car. Actually, it seems like the police officer can arrest him anyway, but the guy should be able to avoid conviction if he's not a drug dealer.

Liberty wrote:the part about belonging to a gang sounds good, but taking it to court and proving it would seem difficult. While the gangsters mark themselves up with tats and clothing styles. They don't exactly register the group at the county courthouse either.

Section 71.01. (d) says "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

boomerang wrote:

Liberty wrote:Although I fully support the new laws,but there are costs associated with freedom. Is the information that is radioed that reliable, about past charges and convictions. I can understand an LEO not being happy about letting some seemingly punkish kid go that is tooling around with a gun in his car. as I said the price of freedom.

If the person with a gun in the car also has illegal drugs, they're engaged in criminal activity more serious than a traffic violation, and the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If the person with a gun in the car is a convicted felon, I think they're prohibited by Texas and/or US law from possessing a firearm, and the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If "the handgun is in plain view" the police officer can arrest them for unlawful carry.

If the person with a gun in the car is Black, or the police officer doesn't like his fashion sense, that's not a sufficient reason to deny his right to keep and bear arms. Neither of those makes a kid a drug dealer either.
If the guy is really a drug dealer and that was proved (or can be proved) in a court of law, the police officer can still arrest him for having a gun in the car. Actually, it seems like the police officer can arrest him anyway, but the guy should be able to avoid conviction if he's not a drug dealer.

Liberty wrote:the part about belonging to a gang sounds good, but taking it to court and proving it would seem difficult. While the gangsters mark themselves up with tats and clothing styles. They don't exactly register the group at the county courthouse either.

Section 71.01. (d) says "Criminal street gang" means three or more persons having a common identifying sign or symbol or an identifiable leadership who continuously or regularly associate in the commission of criminal activities.

We keep calling this drug dealer a kid; how old does one have to be to exercise this traveling right?
I realize some people refer to individuals up to age 40 as kids, but I'm wondering if we have someone in the 18-21 crowd, what the law may say.

Venus Pax wrote:We keep calling this drug dealer a kid; how old does one have to be to exercise this traveling right?

As far as I can tell, anyone with a valid driver license can carry a handgun in the vehicle that he or she is driving.

We discussed this when H.B. 1815 was in the works, and no one saw differently.

Minors have always been able to carry long guns in Texas, and certain police officials occasionally complain about it. It's one of the factors that gets us our D- grade from the Bradys.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:We keep calling this drug dealer a kid; how old does one have to be to exercise this traveling right?

As far as I can tell, anyone with a valid driver license can carry a handgun in the vehicle that he or she is driving.

We discussed this when H.B. 1815 was in the works, and no one saw differently.

Well, I see it differently.

First, there is no traveling right. Traveling as defined in Case Law still exists.

Second, the new law hb1815, redefines UCW to not include certain types of carry. Here is one relevant portion:

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

Based on this, I would not use the words "anyone with a valid driver license" but instead, anyone "directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control". I can think of lots of folks with DLs would not be eligible, and I am sure anti-gun LEOs and DAs can too, and I can also see folks without DLs also being eligible.

My overall opinion is, get a CHL and remove all doubt about the legality of your car carry.

Renegade wrote:Based on this, I would not use the words "anyone with a valid driver license" but instead, anyone "directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control". I can think of lots of folks with DLs would not be eligible, ... and I can also see folks without DLs also being eligible.

OK. There are people with a valid driver license who cannot legally possess a firearm: felons, mentally ill, dishonorably discharged from the military etc.

I should have written, "if you can legally possess a handgun and have a driver license."

Can someone who is not a licensed driver own a vehicle in Texas? Every time I have bought a car, I have been required to show my license and insurance card.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:
I should have written, "if you can legally possess a handgun and have a driver license."
- Jim

Ownership of the vehicle, or having a drivers license are not requirements of the law. So it is possible to not have a DL, and not own the car, and still be legal. For example, me and my 18 YO son who does not have a DL yet, are walking to the car. I give him keys to let him in to car, while I go back to house to get something. The vehicle is clearly "under the person's control". Likewise for a friend's vehicle, you may have a DL, but "control" is the issue, not ownership.

Renegade wrote:First, there is no traveling right.

Yes there is. A U.S. Supreme Court case (Ollie's Bar-B-Q) from the early days of the civil rights movement held that a restaurant's refusal to serve a black customer violated his right to travel, because it denied him food and food is necessary when traveling. I haven't thought about this case since law school, so I can't recall the details of the opinion.

Chas.

Renegade wrote:Ownership of the vehicle, or having a drivers license are not requirements of the law. So it is possible to not have a DL, and not own the car, and still be legal. For example, me and my 18 YO son who does not have a DL yet, are walking to the car. I give him keys to let him in to car, while I go back to house to get something. The vehicle is clearly "under the person's control".

That might make for some interesting case law, but I'm not willing to foot the bill.

- Jim