(TX) Evidently SOME politicians appreciate the value of a handgun

[middy]

The common definistion of "travelling" is "going from one place to another." I think you should read Terry Keel's explanation more closely, and perhaps contact him if you still think it's illegal to carry to your local grocery store and back...

 

[TexasRifleman]

hmmmm I suppose that no criminal action will be taken. Here in California if I were to carry while taking the CCW class, that would be it ... a felony. Special treatment seems the lay of the land no matter which regime one lives under.

Hook686

Yeah, the "Special Treatment" you refer to is because of your own personal choice to live in California. Don't blame the rest of us because of your sad situation. What happened in this case is perfectly legal where the citizens love Freedom.

 

[JohnKSa]

The common definistion of "travelling" is "going from one place to another." I think you should read Terry Keel's explanation more closely, and perhaps contact him if you still think it's illegal to carry to your local grocery store and back...

If travelling is really defined as anytime you're in your car going from one place to another then his comment about the state being able to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist" is totally meaningless.

Clearly, you CAN be in the car and going from one place to another and NOT be travelling, or it would be plain silly for Keel to say that the state could prove it.

Keel carefully explains what the law was intended to do. HB 823 moves the burden of proof from the citizen to the state. This law requires that the presumption is of innocence unless the state can prove otherwise. The old law placed the burden of proof on the citizen. If found with a handgun, the citizen was formerly assumed to be guilty unless HE could prove that he was travelling.

That is ALL the new law does. He clearly states that the new law does NOT define travelling and makes it clear in the process that travelling is not legally defined.

The legislature has likewise never defined “traveling” because a definition invariably has the unintended effect of unfairly limiting the term to a narrow set of circumstances.
...
In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances.

Therefore, if it was illegal for you to carry a handgun in your car when driving a block to the grocery store before the law passed, it is still illegal.

Mr. Keels comments make it clear that this law changes nothing in terms of what is legal or illegal. It only transfers the burden of proof from the citizen to the state. The ONLY difference now is that if you are caught with a handgun in the car, the officer will PRESUME you are travelling UNLESS you (or the circumstances of the situation) make it abundantly clear that you are not.

 

[CatsDieNow]

You can hear Hupp tell her own story here:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200103/08_mccalluml_guns/

 

[middy]

"In enacting HB 823, the 79th legislature, like all previous legislatures, declined to define traveling as a narrow set of particular circumstances. ... The new statute instead focuses on a defined set of relevant, objective facts that are capable of being determined on the spot by law officers."

(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.

There is no mention of "wearing flip-flops and bearing a receipt for ice cream"...

I think you're misinterpreting Terry Keel's explanation, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JohnKSa]

middy,

The key is that travelling is not being redefined nor even defined. If you agree that Keel knows what he's talking about then there can be no question about that--he is too clear to be misunderstood. That being the case, whatever was illegal before is still illegal.

Therefore, if making a 2 block round trip with a handgun in the car was illegal before the law passed, it is STILL illegal. However, if a policeman catches you, he will PRESUME you are innocent and will not arrest or cite you UNLESS there is clear evidence that you are NOT innocent (i.e. not travelling).

The new law does NOT affect the legality of carrying a handgun in a vehicle, it only moves the burden of proof from the citizen to the state. NOTHING more.

Here is the NRA-ILA Legal Counsel's analysis of the law.

HB 823 Bill Analysis Provided by the staff at NRA-ILA
Texas H.B. 823 prevents the police from routinely arresting a law-abiding person who is transporting a concealed pistol in his motor vehicle. This is accomplished by clothing a law-abiding person with the presumption of being a traveler. The traveler presumption may be rebutted by the state by presenting proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In plain terms, a law-abiding person should have no problem transporting his pistol in a motor vehicle provided the pistol is concealed.

My emphasis added.

I would add to the provision "...provided the pistol is concealed and the occupants of the car don't provide the officer with evidence that might incriminate themselves."