Things Are Getting Dicey In Houston
04-25-2006, 09:37 AM
#21
Originally Posted by Blackfly
A friend of mine (his brother is HPD) said that it is illigal to carry a gun in the car only after you commit a crime.
i.e. you get pulled over for no llicence plates or no blinker or run a stop sign etc.
a catch 22. This sucks.
i.e. you get pulled over for no llicence plates or no blinker or run a stop sign etc.
a catch 22. This sucks.
Here is a little read on traveling and what it is and isn't legal
The definition of "traveling," for the exemption from a charge of illegal carry under 46.15(b)(3), is this:
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.
-----
Further confusion comes from the law's complicated jury instructions, burdens of proof, and presumptions about whether the person charged was in fact traveling at the time. It does appear to now put the burden of proof on the state, where it belongs and which is proper, so you're innocent until proven guilty. This will need some shakeout in court, with someone's future on the line.
The old model was the opposite -- your were guilty unless you could prove your innocence as an indefinable traveler -- a horrendous, un-American festering wound on the justice system. That euphemistically named "affirmative defense" procedure is so contrary to everything America stands for it should be abolished, its perpetrators run out of town, and I'm being nice about it.
The long line of logic attached to the traveler definition is (sit down):
If charged with illegal carry, and there's a presumption you're a traveler, the jury must be told of the traveler exemption, unless the judge decides the evidence can't reasonably support it; if the jury gets the traveler evidence it's presumed good unless the state can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; if the state fails to disprove it the jury gets it as a fact; if the jury decides it is not fact the state still must prove each other element of the complaint. Approximately -- if anyone out there disagrees or cares to discuss it, reach me at gunlaws.com, and I'll see about posting anything with merit. I decide merit. Read Healy’s paper, it helps.
04-25-2006, 11:18 AM
#23
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NW H-town
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JETG
Ya and no, depends on the officers read on what is the law and what is not.
Here is a little read on traveling and what it is and isn't legal
The definition of "traveling," for the exemption from a charge of illegal carry under 46.15(b)(3), is this:
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.
-----
Further confusion comes from the law's complicated jury instructions, burdens of proof, and presumptions about whether the person charged was in fact traveling at the time. It does appear to now put the burden of proof on the state, where it belongs and which is proper, so you're innocent until proven guilty. This will need some shakeout in court, with someone's future on the line.
The old model was the opposite -- your were guilty unless you could prove your innocence as an indefinable traveler -- a horrendous, un-American festering wound on the justice system. That euphemistically named "affirmative defense" procedure is so contrary to everything America stands for it should be abolished, its perpetrators run out of town, and I'm being nice about it.
The long line of logic attached to the traveler definition is (sit down):
If charged with illegal carry, and there's a presumption you're a traveler, the jury must be told of the traveler exemption, unless the judge decides the evidence can't reasonably support it; if the jury gets the traveler evidence it's presumed good unless the state can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; if the state fails to disprove it the jury gets it as a fact; if the jury decides it is not fact the state still must prove each other element of the complaint. Approximately -- if anyone out there disagrees or cares to discuss it, reach me at gunlaws.com, and I'll see about posting anything with merit. I decide merit. Read Healy’s paper, it helps.
Here is a little read on traveling and what it is and isn't legal
The definition of "traveling," for the exemption from a charge of illegal carry under 46.15(b)(3), is this:
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.
-----
Further confusion comes from the law's complicated jury instructions, burdens of proof, and presumptions about whether the person charged was in fact traveling at the time. It does appear to now put the burden of proof on the state, where it belongs and which is proper, so you're innocent until proven guilty. This will need some shakeout in court, with someone's future on the line.
The old model was the opposite -- your were guilty unless you could prove your innocence as an indefinable traveler -- a horrendous, un-American festering wound on the justice system. That euphemistically named "affirmative defense" procedure is so contrary to everything America stands for it should be abolished, its perpetrators run out of town, and I'm being nice about it.
The long line of logic attached to the traveler definition is (sit down):
If charged with illegal carry, and there's a presumption you're a traveler, the jury must be told of the traveler exemption, unless the judge decides the evidence can't reasonably support it; if the jury gets the traveler evidence it's presumed good unless the state can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt; if the state fails to disprove it the jury gets it as a fact; if the jury decides it is not fact the state still must prove each other element of the complaint. Approximately -- if anyone out there disagrees or cares to discuss it, reach me at gunlaws.com, and I'll see about posting anything with merit. I decide merit. Read Healy’s paper, it helps.
04-25-2006, 11:33 AM
#26
Originally Posted by SJRTX
Traveling is still not defined. That simply shifts the burden of proof onto the prosecutor. Traveling has been defined by case law over the years. Not once have the courts determined that traveling is going to the store for milk, or driving to work. So even if you meet those 5 criteria, you can be charged if you are carrying a gun around town, and will most likely lose in court.
That is correct it has not been defined. As it says in the quote, it does shift the burden of proof on the prosecutor to prove your "travel". Which as you say case law defines it in your opinion. Which your right you can be charged if you were carrying a gun around town, and could lose in court, depending on a lot of variables. Depends on the person, and depends on what is said in court as to were you were "traveling". If I am correct you are a police officer, and also understand that the law as it sits now is not perfect on defining the words "traveling", and everyone has there own opinion on what it actually constitutes as traveling. Even police officers have different ideas on what traveling is. Either way I will have my CHL, and wont have to worry about this issue, but it is legal to carry a pistol in your car, depending on how you look and precieve the law.
J
04-25-2006, 11:35 AM
#27
Glad to read those stories. Each criminal killed prevents the many crimes he would have committed over the span of his "career". That's many innocent people would will not be hurt, killed, or at a minimum traumatized.
I wonder if any of this is related to MS-13? I think mere membership in MS-13 should be grounds for a firing squad, but then again I could never run for public office with my harsh views.
I wonder if any of this is related to MS-13? I think mere membership in MS-13 should be grounds for a firing squad, but then again I could never run for public office with my harsh views.
04-25-2006, 11:50 AM
#28
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Gainesville, Denton TX
Posts: 8,766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good! I like how he doesn't have any regret either. ******* try to take my **** and a gun is there I'm going to shoot them too.
I've been lookin at Sig's lately, though a Kimber looks pretty nice too..... $$$
I've been lookin at Sig's lately, though a Kimber looks pretty nice too..... $$$
04-25-2006, 12:14 PM
#31
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...s-it-mean.html
Here is a nice read, about carrying
Kimber is my next gun, ultra 45
J
Here is a nice read, about carrying
Kimber is my next gun, ultra 45
J
04-25-2006, 01:04 PM
#32
TECH Resident
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston,TX
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrBill97396
Blame Katrina, New Orleans needs there people to go back
NOOOO ****...thats why i live in the woodlands...its around houston...but without all the bs that goes on towards the "inner city" these rich ***** woudnt let those #@%!*$ come around here....the second they see somethin "weird" one of the 34 police divisons around here send out da popo...
04-25-2006, 01:22 PM
#33
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Not Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JETG
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...s-it-mean.html
Here is a nice read, about carrying
Kimber is my next gun, ultra 45
J
Here is a nice read, about carrying
Kimber is my next gun, ultra 45
J
04-25-2006, 01:36 PM
#34
Originally Posted by Venkman
Kimbers are the ****. After owning a glock, ruger, beretta, browning, sig and kimber pistols, I can say that any handgun I buy in the future will be either a sig or kimber. Nothing else.
Venkman does not have a gun fetish.
I repeat: Venkman does not have a gun fetish.
I'm wearing my body armor for a few weeks until he forgets that I just made fun of him.
04-25-2006, 01:38 PM
#35
Originally Posted by Venkman
Kimbers are the ****. After owning a glock, ruger, beretta, browning, sig and kimber pistols, I can say that any handgun I buy in the future will be either a sig or kimber. Nothing else.
I agree, know lots of people that have sig and kimber.
This is the one I want, and have been shopping for. Pretty sure I will have one in the next week or so.
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols...nlessultra.php
J
04-25-2006, 02:02 PM
#36
12 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chadtx01
It's legal to carry a shotgun or rifle in your vehicle as long as its not chambered.
04-25-2006, 02:22 PM
#37
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston / University of Texas, Austin
Posts: 6,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, you can carry a "long gun" so deer rifles, shot guns w/o having a CHL. Yes Kenny, it can not have a shell in the "chamber" but it can have shells in the hull
04-25-2006, 02:29 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sweeny Texas
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by | Powered by Satan |
yeah, you can carry a "long gun" so deer rifles, shot guns w/o having a CHL. Yes Kenny, it can not have a shell in the "chamber" but it can have shells in the hull
04-25-2006, 02:42 PM
#39
12 Second Club
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yep I knew about long gun carrying laws being more relaxed, but never was sure about the "loaded" state.
Tyler, lets go to Cabela's! lol
been planning on getting a new shotgun this summer
Tyler, lets go to Cabela's! lol
been planning on getting a new shotgun this summer
04-25-2006, 03:43 PM
#40
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Not Austin, Texas
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigSteele
yep I knew about long gun carrying laws being more relaxed, but never was sure about the "loaded" state.
Tyler, lets go to Cabela's! lol
been planning on getting a new shotgun this summer
Tyler, lets go to Cabela's! lol
been planning on getting a new shotgun this summer
