Texas Traveling law for Non-CHL

[ready4shtf]

Ok so lets say you are traveling in Texas (and I mean by the old definition), say you are driving from Dallas to Houston for the weekend. So you take your .45, which you can legally do. You have it in your belt holster under your shirt (which is also ok).

You are pulled over for a traffic stop. Do you...

A: Take the .45 our of your belt and put it in the glove box when you get out your insurance card? ( anticipating he might ask you to step out of the car, which at that point would be Unlawfully Carrying, because you arent in you car anymore
Or

B: Leave it in the holster to avoid suspicious movement but risk him asking you to step out...
Or
C: Leave it holstered, but if he asks you to step out, inform him that you are traveling, and you would like to leave your .45 in the car and ask permission to remove it.

Whats the legally smartest thing to do? (other than not have it on your belt in the first place).


PS: Or does it even have to stay in the car? For some reason I thought it did.

 

[Battler]

While I don't know the preferred car procedure for this (guessing it would come from custom or something some police dept said, rather than the law) - the law itself has nothing to say about "Cars" with respect to your travelling.

Edited to add: They STILL left the "tavelling" thing vague, with some DAs promising to still prosecute "travellers".

 

[ready4shtf]

I dont think any cop is going to arrest you if you have 2 suitcases packed and a map in the front seat...... You are OBVIOUSLY traveling.

Its the new definition that has people worried. Is driving to work each day traveling? Legally yes, but you might still get arrested....

 

[TallPine]

I dont think any cop is going to arrest you if you have 2 suitcases packed and a map in the front seat...... You are OBVIOUSLY traveling.

Its the new definition that has people worried. Is driving to work each day traveling?

So - put a couple of suitcases in the back seat and a map in the front seat when you're driving to work

 

[ready4shtf]

Yeah, I thought about that, but it dosent really hold up if you arent on a major route between two real destinations. If you get caught and you offf course, suspicions would arise. Especially if you are in a suit and tie in rush hour.

 

[Art Eatman]

The Houston DA interprets the law to mean that if you're just out driving around, commuting or doing a grocery-store trip, you're not travelling.

The Bell County Attorney, Richard Miller, believes that cops can't "determine whether a motorist stopped for a minor traffic violation is eligible to be in possession of a hundgun" (TSRA Legislative Report, may/June 2006) He believes arresting officers should ask all manner of questions about from/to and reasons for travel.

Ken Sparks of Columbus, Texas, the County Attorney and DA, says, "A perxon is not a traveler unless he is on an overnight trip, still in the course of the journey, and has not reached his destination."

It's probably gonna take some court cases or some cleanup in the next session of the Legislature before this is resolved on a statewide basis. SFAIK, most DAs and LEOs who are aware of the new law see it in the manner of intent--said intent being in our favor.

Art

 

[Aguila Blanca]

IMHO, the legislature of my native state really screwed the pooch on this one. Instead of just coming out and saying that vehicular carry is always legal, they left stand the old law that said it is legal when traveling, and inserted some linguistic mumbo-jumbo about "presuming" that all vehicular travel is traveling in the the context of the law.

The random DAs who are taking issue with that are clearly going against the intent of the legislature ... but they know that perfectly well, and are doing it because they know damed well the legislature took a screwball route to trying to "fix" a bad law.