Will Clark

What does this tell you? Get a tow hitch, slam on your brakes and lance his radiator. Then drive off like nothing happened

PiP

That was a fucked up story. It was allegedly some accountant that went apeshit in traffic (with his daughter in his Mercedes).
He blocked the other guy in and was beating on the window so hard the glass broke, so he got smoked. Oh well.

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

The guy got out of his car, and starting banging on the guys window-showing his INTENT to cause grievous bodily harm. Then the glass broke, and by that he showed the MEANS to cause that grievous bodily harm, now there is no barrier between the two, and he has the OPPORTUNITY to cause that grievous bodily harm. Once those three factors are in place, you may shoot to stop the threat, and shoot until the threat has stopped. The grand jury gave him a "No Bill", but the attackers family may have still sued in civil court afterwards.

I get mad like everyone else while driving. However, since I carry a gun, I have to hold it in, and not let that anger get the best of me. God forbid if I were to flip someone off or exchange words with them, and the situation that I either started, or fueled later escalated to where I had to use deadly force to protect myself. It would not be a good situation.

Best thing to do, is take a deep breath, & (to yourself) call them the worst names in the book, tell yourself how ignorant, or ugly(or both) they are, and then let it go.

Starting September 1, 2005 the law will allow people to carry a gun in their vehicle, without a license. There will probably be some people who decide to do this, that have a "short fuse" and no common sense to boot. So they will either brandish(point it at you) becoming an instant felon, or worse if they pull the trigger. You dont want to be on EITHER end of the gun in this situation. So the best way to avoid that all together is just be cool, and learn how to shrug it off.

A_W_O_L

iTrader: (2)

Today a guy was riding beside me, APPARENTLY he wanted over in my lane so that he could get into the left turn lane, but never once did he show his intent to want in my lane (driving slow just in front of me, yet alot of space between him and the guy in front of him.....no signal, nothing) he jerks over infront of me with inches to spare and then starts flipping me off out of the sun-roof. It aggrivats me, but I find it more amusing than anything. So I bump the throttle as he moves over into the turn lane and stop beside him (my light is green and my windows are down) I laugh at him as I motion for him to come here, and I tell him to "Bring it Bitch!" he decided to run his redlight.

Instead of getting worked up I try to have fun with it....but some people think that just because they are in their car/truck that they can act any way they want to and get away with it. Their day will come soon enough....if they are lucky they will only get thier *** beat by someone.

UlySSes- I feel you pain bro...If it didn't look like complete hell, I would have welded the biggest bumber anyone has ever seen to the front of my car and start turning these ****'s upside down years ago.

PiP

Do you have the link to the story? I was actually looking for it recently but can't find it.

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

no, unfortunately I dont. But that was my analysis based on the facts that I do know.

Brandon Boomhauer

iTrader: (10)

SJRTX, a little info on the ability to carry w/o CLH would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to read up on that.

raven4960

iTrader: (1)

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

Its HB823, and it defines "Traveling". You will be able to carry a gun in your car with you, but not anywhere else.

Here is the Bills History:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-b...LLSUFFIX=00823

Here is a cut and paste of the law that holds the very vague (until now) traveling exemption:

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;
(2) is on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control unless the person is an employee or agent of the owner of the premises and the person's primary responsibility is to act in the capacity of a security guard to protect persons or property, in which event the person must comply with Subdivision (5);
(3) is traveling;

Now here is the new section that defines "Traveling"

AN ACT

relating to the applicability of the offense of unlawful carrying
of weapons to certain persons and to the consequence of certain
presumptions in the prosecution of a criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(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.
SECTION 2. Section 2.05, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b), when [When] this code or another penal law
establishes a presumption with respect to any fact, it has the
following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as
follows:
(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption
must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt;
(B) that if such facts are proven beyond a
reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense
sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find;
(C) that even though the jury may find the
existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the
existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the
presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption
for any purpose.
(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a
presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it
has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the
presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do
not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the
presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to
whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the
jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.
SECTION 3. The changes in law made by this Act apply only to
an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered
by the law in effect at the time the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of
this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that
date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2005.

FIREHAWK #07

iTrader: (1)

SJRTX what kinda gun do ya carry with ya, just curious....

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

Now here it is being Discussed by an attorney (from Friendswood) that runs TexasCHLForum.com

He takes all the credit for the following:


HB823 effectively, though not expressly, overturns prior case law dealing with the scope of the term “traveling,” but only insofar as we are talking about traveling in a “private motor vehicle.” No longer does someone traveling by private motor vehicle have to try to guess what constitutes “traveling” in the counties through which they plan to drive. The case law held everything from crossing a single county line to crossing multiple county lines, requiring an overnight stay and not being a normal route (i.e. traveling salesman). If you are in your car, and meet the other requirements, then you are presumed to be traveling, even if you’re just going to the store for a gallon of milk.

However, the old case law is still applicable if you are traveling by a method other than in a “private motor vehicle.” Examples include bicycle, walking/hiking, boat, etc. True, most people don’t “travel” by bicycle or on foot in the conventional sense, but some do. (My oldest son often rides his bicycle a 100 miles or more in races, sometimes over more than one day.)

On the issue of a CHL notifying a LEO you are armed if asked for an ID, I think the courts will likely hold that the CHL notification requirement still applies, in spite of HB823. HB823 is silent on the issue, so it does not override the CHL statute by timing and implication. Secondly, the notification requirement is in the CHL statute, applies to all CHL’s, and makes no exceptions. I have been asked if the concealment requirement applies to a CHL carrying his handgun on his own property. I do not believe there are any cases on point, but when on your own property, you are not carrying pursuant to the CHL statute, thus I do not believe the appellate courts would uphold a conviction for failure to conceal. (I also doubt a reasonable DA would accept the charges.) The same argument could be made about the notification requirement when stopped by a LEO, but I think it’s more likely with that fact pattern that the charges would be accepted and the appellate courts would uphold the conviction. The rationale would be that “the specific controls over the general” combined with a recognition of the actor being on his own property.

Remember, until we see some appellate opinions, if any are forthcoming, this is merely Cotton On The Law, which is worth every penny you've paid for it.


And him posting again on the topic to describe further:

Presumptions can be rebutted, unless the statute expressly states the presumption is unrebuttable. However, with HB823, the only way to disprove the presumption is to disprove the facts underlying the presumption. All you have to do is establish the elements of the presumption. When dealing with HB823, this means that 1) you're in a private motor vehicle; 2) not committing a crime (other than Class C traffic violations); 3) not prohibited from possessing a firearm; 4) not a member of a street gang; or 5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

The presumption goes to the jury, if there are facts establishing elements 1) through 5). In order to rebut the presumption, the state must prove that one of the listed elements (the facts establishing the presumption) do not exist, and this must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Only by disproving one of the 5 elements will defeat the presumption. It matters not if you have fresh groceries in the car, are on your regular route to and/or from work, or don't have any luggage. It wouldn't matter if you told the officer you were just driving three blocks from your house to a neighbor's home. Can you be arrested? Sure, but most LEO's are not going to waste their time and no responsible ADA is going to accept the charges, unless there is evidence you don't meet one or more of elements 2) through 5).

Note the statute's instructions on what is required to rebut the presumption:

(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;

Also, the Legislative history of this bill makes it abundantly clear that the intent was to allow people to carry guns in their cars without a CHL.

There is a ton if misinformation in the newsgroups on this issue, most of which is based upon erroneous attempts to apply pre-HB823 case law.

Was there a cleaner way to achieve this goal? You bet! However, I suspect the author of the bill felt it be less controversial to focus on "traveling" currently in the Penal Code, rather than make a more overt change that would draw more attention to the bill.



So in conclusion, its seems pretty clear cut to myself and many others, what the intent of HB823. However the word may not get out to a lot of officers and you may still get "the ride" if you are caught with it in your car. Court decisions will help take the ambiguity out of this in the future. So again, while this is still new, many police will probably not even know about it, and you may get cuffed and arrested anyways. The DA however, may not charge you. You might want to hold off and let others be guinea pigs first so some case law can be established. Or better yet, just get a CHL, because its much cleaner, and it doesnt limit you to your car.

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

Glock 23, .40S&W in a Hoffners Kydex IWB (inside waistband) holster, 1 extra mag, Speer Gold Dot 180gr.

Previously it was a Glock 31 .357 SIG, same holster, Speer Gold Dot 124gr

In the future it might be a SIG 229. probably in .40S&W caliber.

Texas TransAm

I couldn't have put it any better myself. A lot of people will probably get hooked up over this deal. I forsee this being changed again in the future as the "armed motorist" incidents start to rise.

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

we will just have to see how it plays out, because several states already allow this...

regorih383

iTrader: (21)

does anyone carrie a gun while they drive

Brandon Boomhauer

iTrader: (10)

regorih383 - I imagine several do on here, with CHLs and some without.

SJRTX - Thanks for the info.

anLS1x2

Hey I have some of those!... 2 pair... I need a third ...

LS69TA

iTrader: (30)

Glock 23 here as well. I use the Hydra-Shock 180's. They mushroom out pretty good. Perfect 'shroom after shooting a couple thru a block of firewood

white man

iTrader: (1)

my dad has just about put cars that tried to skip the nice line of traffic in to the divider at 59 getting on to 610 by the galleria. we just about had faces of death material one day. if you see a white & maroon 99 suburban over there don't cut him off he hates that truck

SJRTX

iTrader: (1)

I love this gun!