Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

robb969

member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
11
Location
Ft Worth, Tx
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2005-06-17.3619

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed legislation aimed at clarifying existing firearm laws, enhancing protections for law-abiding gun owners and reducing barriers for gun ownership.

“The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen of our country,” Perry said. “This legislation will clarify existing firearm laws, enhance protections for law abiding gun owners and reduce barriers for gun ownership.”

The bills Gov. Perry has signed include:

House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee.
House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.
House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.
House Bill 1483 (Frost) which will expand methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.
House Bill 823 (Keel) which clarifies the current definition of “traveling” as it relates to someone carrying a firearm. Current law is ambiguous and is interpreted differently by courts and law enforcement.
House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.
All bills become effective Sept. 1, 2005.


823 is the most impactful, imho
 
He has been a very gun-friendly governor...if only he were not pushing that Trans-Texas Corridor crap :(
 
823 is the most impactful, imho
Click to expand...

Read the text of the law. It merely provides the presumption that you're traveling to a jury if you meet 5 criteria. You can still be arrested and go to trial, the jury is just told they have to presume you're a traveler if you meet the criteria. The presumption is also rebuttable. It's not really, practically, any better than the current law.

Get your CHLs Texans.
 
Is there a good summary of 823 somewhere? TSRA's website only had the one sentence summary with no details last I looked.
 
This still probably won't be enought to save him from Streyhorn (Reylander) in the GOP race. With the exception of this he is not that good, although this does change my mind about him quite a bit.
 
Read the text of the law.
Click to expand...

Existing Texas law:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH,SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
§ 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.

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(3) is traveling;
Click to expand...

The problem has been that “traveling” was not defined in the penal code and was open to interpretation by the courts. HB 823 simply defines “traveling”:

H.B. No. 823
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.
Click to expand...
...and it goes on with a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo about presumption and how these presumptions are subject to reasonable doubt by a jury.

I, at first, was happy to read of this bill and followed it through the House and Senate and anxiously awaited its signature. As I thought about it, I realized that it would probably cut into the number of CHLs sought by Texans. It makes sense that if one can carry at home (or any property under one's control) and in one's car, then a CHL isn't as necessary. I agree with HK that we should all go ahead and get a CHL, but I'm still encouraged by this bill's passage. ANY lessening of infringements on our rights are welcome. I'm still waiting for the day I can go about my business with my sidearm in plain view and not need a government permission slip to do so.
 
Wow! Did you see the witness list for the hearings? The ACLU was testifying IN FAVOR of 823. Has Hades suddenly frozen up solid?

Also, anyone know why all the coppers were against it?
 
The text of the bill is here

Read the text of the law. It merely provides the presumption that you're traveling to a jury if you meet 5 criteria. You can still be arrested and go to trial, the jury is just told they have to presume you're a traveler if you meet the criteria. The presumption is also rebuttable. It's not really, practically, any better than the current law.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's exactly true.

The Texas Penal Code

Specifically, we are looking at Section 46. Basically, it is illegal in Texas (barring a CHL) to carry a handgun. There are exceptions that are outlined in the "NONAPPLICABILITY" section (46.15), and one of these is "traveling". Note that traveling is NOT an Affirmative Defense, which would require you to prove in a trial that you were traveling, it is an exception that makes the law non-applicable. HB 823 further clarifies "traveling" to mean "in a private motor vehicle". Since the laws against carrying a handgun (sections (46.02 and 46.03) are non-applicable, you should never be arrested for carrying a handgun in your car unless you are otherwise prohibited.

I'm not sure the reason for the verbage about the jury in the new law, maybe one of our Texas LEOs could add their input?

EDIT: others are faster on the draw than I. :)
 
rock jock:

Wow! Did you see the witness list for the hearings? The ACLU was testifying IN FAVOR of 823. Has Hades suddenly frozen up solid?
Click to expand...

The Texas branch of the ACLU is pretty decent at recognizing the 2nd as a civil right. The individual state segements of national groups do not have to fall in lock-step with the national agenda. For instance, when I adopt an animal, I happily give money to the local Humane Society, but would never give a dime to the HSUS.
 
I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others.
 
The part about the jury is basically instructions for the jury to decide if you are a gang member, if the LEO decides you are a gnag member and does arrest you for traveling w/firearm.
 
It is remarkable that I can't find anyhing about this on the TV news or in the paper.

I imagine that it is the worst nightmare of the liberal media, which is pretending that it didn't happen.

Lone Star
 
"I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others"

Not sure how you treat old folks, active duty and veterans in New Jersey, but we tend to give old folks a break down here. Most of them being on fixed incomes and all.

As to active and recently retired or honorably discharged veterans, it makes sense to allow them to skip the weapons qualification if they qualified in the military on firearms. We also have an abiding respect for those who serve and have served in the military here. I guess if it upsets you that veterans and serving folks in the military get a break on CCW, we'd have to peel you off the ceiling if you saw the deal we have for Texas veterans on land purchases
 
It is a shame about 823. It is actually more restrictive than the old law. Travelling was originally done for people on horseback back in the 1800's. It would also cover you for stopping for gas or eating because that was a reasonable part of the trip, all this according to my attorney Roger Zimmerman. Now it ONLY applies while you are in your car.
 
It is a shame about 823. It is actually more restrictive than the old law. Travelling was originally done for people on horseback back in the 1800's. It would also cover you for stopping for gas or eating because that was a reasonable part of the trip, all this according to my attorney Roger Zimmerman. Now it ONLY applies while you are in your car.
Click to expand...

Arguably it was less restrictive. There is a book available that discusses the intricacies of the old law and the case history of how is had been applied. The sad part is that it was pretty much up to the officer and local court to decide and many, many times a determination was made that the traveling exemption did not count for whatever reason. It makes very interesting reading. At least this way, it seems pretty cut and dry. From a legal standpoint, location seems much easier to determine than condition of travel or not.
 
Well regardless of the original intent of the law, as it is being applied in this day it only applies to your car anyways. And you have to prove you are traveling and you better be convincing. I don't see how 823 is less restrictive. If you took your gun out of your car while on a road trip the traveling exception would not get you out of hot water.
 
Here's a gem Perry vetoed: SB 1195.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01195&VERSION=5&TYPE=B
SECTION 1. Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 1.06. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. (a) The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for any
alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic may not
search the vehicle unless the peace officer:
(1) has probable cause or another legal basis for the
search;
(2) conducts a search for weapons based on an
articulation of a reasonable fear for the officer's safety or the
safety of others;
(3) obtains the written consent of the operator of the
vehicle on a form that complies with Section 411.0207(b),
Government Code; or
(4) obtains the oral consent of the operator of the
vehicle and ensures that the oral consent is evidenced by an audio
and video recording that complies with Section 411.0207(c),
Government Code.
Click to expand...
The underlined part would have been an amendment to existing code.

This would have made a roadside search illegal unless an officer obtained the written or recorded oral consent of the operator. I'm sure the LEOs here would squeal as did those in Texas, but what does "The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions" mean if the search is a matter of he said, she said when it goes to court? Of course, if a cop wants to know what you got in your car and you don't consent, he can get a warrant sworn out.
 
I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Well, I guess it wouldn't be THR if there weren't occasional anti-military eruptions. Maybe it is this forum's version of herpes?

I could argue with you about why it is stupid for your silly ass to bitch about people, whose government job often involves the risk of death for poor pay, saving the equivalent of some beer and pizza money on some government fee. But I really can't be bothered. :rolleyes:
 
House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.
Click to expand...

Hooray, I'm going to get my CHL while I'm in Texas for some training! Though I think the CHL should be 18 everywhere (actually, having a little sister, I think it should start at 13 for females, but that's another story) at least this eliminates the "I'm old enough to serve my country but not CCW?" argument in Texas. Partially.

Better than nothing, I suppose.
 
We could use that kind of governor. Would he be available for a couple of terms in California?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Perry signs bills to protect gun owners' rights
Replies
1
Views
273
Standing Wolf
S
PowerG
  • Locked
Mississippi Law Changes
Replies
0
Views
536
PowerG
PowerG
I
  • Locked
Texas: Pro-Guns Bills Passed...
Replies
11
Views
719
Drizzt
D
mljdeckard
  • Locked
New Utah Laws
Replies
3
Views
628
KBintheSLC
KBintheSLC
R
  • Locked
Texas SB501 signed into law!
Replies
2
Views
781
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top