Texas Concealed Carry Laws vs. Other States

Status
Not open for further replies.

mwpslp

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
325
Location
DFW, Texas
I have my CHL in Texas but this is the only state I have CCW in. I was wondering how Texas concealed handgun laws are compared to other states that allow concealed carry? (better, worse, about the same). I also heard that as of September 1st 2005 Texas has made it legal to carry CCW in your vehicle even without a license. I know in the past the law in Texas had some gray area about CCW in a vehicle stating that you had to be "traveling" with an overnight stay, etc. etc. etc. but that this new law does away with all of that. Can anyone confirm this?
 
Check out this site for comparisons:
http://www.packing.org/

And yes supposedly you are 'safe' if you have a gun concealed in your car and meet all of the statutory requirements for traveling but some DAs have threatened prosecution so it's still a little iffy.
 
mwpslp said:
I have my CHL in Texas but this is the only state I have CCW in. I was wondering how Texas concealed handgun laws are compared to other states that allow concealed carry? (better, worse, about the same). I also heard that as of September 1st 2005 Texas has made it legal to carry CCW in your vehicle even without a license. I know in the past the law in Texas had some gray area about CCW in a vehicle stating that you had to be "traveling" with an overnight stay, etc. etc. etc. but that this new law does away with all of that. Can anyone confirm this?

A friend just renewed his CHL instructor's license.

The "new law" allowing carry in vehicles by assuming you are a traveler is a mess. Basically it puts the burden of proof on the state to prove you ARE NOT a traveler.
The problem is, my friend was told in Austin by the DPS, some jurisdictions have already come out and said they would arrest anyone caught with a handgun in the car and no CHL.

And you know if some county LEO arrests you they are going to try everything possible to make it look like a good bust.

I think that is 180 out from the intent of the law but the politicians left a big hole in the law.

It will probably play out in the courts, costing some people a lot of money, win or lose.
 
I guess I don't see how Texas is all that "gun friendly" unless you compare it to CA or IL or NJ.

In Montana for instance, you can carry a gun in a vehicle without a permit. Open carry is legal (though not sure how that goes over in the bigger towns), and you can carry concealed outside of city limits. Permits are "shall issue"

Of course, Alaska and Vermont are even better than MT concerning CCW.
 
Firearms laws overall are better in TX than MA but since the subject is CCW,the biggest differences are: here whether or not you are granted a Class A LTC All Lawful Purposes card depends upon your local CLEO.My town is for all intents and purposes "shall issue" but many places are not.You need to have a permit to posess a handgun at all and even though you may obtain what is called a "license to carry" it may be issued "for target use only" which precludes actual carry.When one has an ALP LTC,your handgun must be carried on your person in your car;actually,the law says "under your direct control".The single advantage of carry here is that it is far less restricted than in many "more free" states as we do not have the 30-06 signs,it is lawful to carry in places that serve alcohol and have I ever seen a business with a sign that says concealed handguns aren't allowed.
 
Depends who the 'other state' is.

VS TN, they suck. VS say, South Carolina or Georgia, they are average. VS any may issue, they are good.
 
I guess I don't see how Texas is all that "gun friendly" unless you compare it to CA or IL or NJ.

Yep. Too many restrictions for my taste. Well, actually, anything other than Vermont type carry has too many restrictions for my taste, but....

Per Oregon law, there are only three places I can't carry:courthouses, jails, and state parks. If I carry on posted private property and refuse to leave when asked, I can be charged with trespass. Other than that, no worries.
As has been said, Tx law is good when compared to some, not so good when compared to others.
 
FWIW TX is pretty much still Pro Gun. Some form of a CCW law is better than none at all. Its only illegal to carry if theres a properly posted 30-06 sign on the entrance to a building. These No Smoking circle pictures with a Revolver in them are crap if not accompanied with the 30-06 signage in the appropiate size and exact wordage.

Just be grateful they will even allow CHL in Texas or anywhere that does for that matter. Its a shame that those Bill of Rights are slowly slipping away from us it seems.

FWIW, I agree with some of the restrictions but some of them are poo poo if you ask me, I guess you get the good with the bad. I sure as hell don't want to allow some folks to have loaded weapons of any kind in thier hands, so as sad as it is, some form of a law is nessecary.
 
I also really like states that make "concealment" legally optional and not mandatory. As I understand TX law, concealment is the law, and printing can lead to arrest. A lot of other stated, it just doesn't matter.

My state, Maine, is shall issue, no real hoops to jump through, you can carry open or whatever, and the only thing that bugs me about Maine law is the fac that you can't carry in schools. Legally. ;)

I've open carried a S&W 629, older model, and no one cares.

-James
 
As I understand TX law, concealment is the law, and printing can lead to arrest. A lot of other stated, it just doesn't matter
That's the biggest thing about our CHL laws that bother me. I think our next step in TX should be open, unlicensed carry. I wouldn't try to mess with the CHL stuff just yet, but open carry would be a good step.

As an aside, you are supposed to keep the weapon concealed from "ordinary observation." It can print, it just can't be obvious that it's a gun. Either Texans are really good at concealing, or LE just doesn't care because it never comes up.
 
It can print, it just can't be obvious that it's a gun. Either Texans are really good at concealing, or LE just doesn't care because it never comes up.
"it never comes up" is the bottom line. I have NEVER heard of anyone even so much as getting hassled for printing.
The "new law" allowing carry in vehicles by assuming you are a traveler is a mess. Basically it puts the burden of proof on the state to prove you ARE NOT a traveler.
The problem is, my friend was told in Austin by the DPS, some jurisdictions have already come out and said they would arrest anyone caught with a handgun in the car and no CHL.
That is correct--the new law does NOT change the legality of carrying a handgun without a CHL. You are still only legally allowed to carry in your vehicle without a CHL if you are travelling.

The new law merely changes the burden of proof from the citizen to the state. In other words, instead of presuming guilt and requiring the citizen to prove innocence, the new law presumes innocence and requires the state to prove guilt.

You can STILL be arrested and prosecuted for carrying a gun in the car without a CHL, it's just not as likely as it used to be, and it's now a bit harder for the state to prove you're guilty. (They didn't really have to before.)
 
"it never comes up" is the bottom line. I have NEVER heard of anyone even so much as getting hassled for printing.
According to DPS, there were 25 convictions in 2001 for "unlawfully carrying handgun by license holder." The Title 10 Ch. 46 also covers carrying in a bar, school, prison, etc., so it's hard to tell from that statistic just who got convicted for what. It also doesn't say whether it's the felony (bars, prisons), or the misdemeanor (everything else). I would guess that the vast majority of the convictions are for alcohol, either for entering a bar, or being drunk.

Anyway, "it never comes up" is exactly the point. I have seen two events wherein a CHL holder was approached by police for printing. One was the holder's father, who happened to be a cop, and the other was a friend who was politely informed by a Dallas officer that it might behoove him to pull his shirt down a little farther. The law says that you have to intentionally fail to conceal to commit a crime (otherwise it's an administrative offense), so your shirt riding up a little on a IWB concealment holster, or the wind blowing your unbuttoned jacked open to reveal your shoulder holster isn't a criminal offense.
 
NorthernExtreme said:
I live in Alaska, and every place but Vermont has a long way to go. :evil:

Unfortunately, I believe Alaskans can't legally carry in schools or school parking lots and grounds, bars, rest homes or child-care facilities, or domestic violence/sexual abuse shelters.
 
Remembering that Texas restricts handguns. There are little or no restrictions on carrying rifles and shotguns.

As far as Texas weapons laws go, some friends of mine and I are trying to get our local Congressthing to amend 46.02 of the Penal Code by adding the highlighted text:
§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club [highlight]while committing an assault or felony, or with the intent to commit an assault or felony[/highlight].

*shrug* Haven't gotten very far yet, but we're patient.

LawDog
 
Lawdog,

Try contacting Alice Tripp with the TSRA and give her your suggestion. She would also be likely to know if there are any other similar proposals being considered, or in the works.
 
Texas also has some rather restrictive/extensive requirements that must be met before they will issue a CCW permit. States with less restrictive requirements don't seem to be plagued by huge numbers of accidental/negligent shootings by CCW holders with less extensive training, yet Texas won't offer reciprocity to states that don't generally "equal" their training requirements.

I'm sure there are those who will say that training is good, we don't want untrained people wandering around wearing GUNS ... but there's no training requirement in the 2nd Amendment that I have been able to find.
 
but there's no training requirement in the 2nd Amendment that I have been able to find.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but an argument can be made that well-regulated refers to training.

LawDog
 
... Texas won't offer reciprocity to states that don't generally "equal" their training requirements.

Not any more, only a background check is required:

Texas Government Code § 411.173. NONRESIDENT LICENSE.
...
(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun under which a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state if the attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is conducted by state or local authorities or an agent of the state or local authorities before the license is issued to determine the applicants' eligibility to possess a firearm under federal law.
...
 
Hawkmoon said:
yet Texas won't offer reciprocity to states that don't generally "equal" their training requirements.
Which states are you talking about? Texas has reciprocity with over 30 states.
 
One other thing to remember is that the Texas Legislature is only in session for about 6 months every two years aside from occasional special sessions. It can take a little time to get changes made. :)
 
Oregon and Washington are pretty good. Washington requires nothing more than going down and filling out a form (with fingerprints). Oregon requires a safety class, but Oregon has the least restrictions of any state I've seen on where you can or cannot carry. You can even carry legally in a pulbic elementary schoolin Oregon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top