"Traveling" w/ a gun

[TexBiker]

No, not when you're talking about the law.

And especially not when you're talking about gun laws!

[THREADJACK ALERT]
I've violated several Texas gun laws by sheer ignorance in the past 15yrs. For instance, I've purchased at least 5 rifles/shotguns in Florida, Montana and Colorado while traveling and brought them home with me. Per federal law, it's all kosher since they were long guns. (All out of state handgun purchases must be transfered through a FFL in your state of residence).

However, I later learned that Texas state law specifically states that long guns can only be purchased and brought back to Texas if they were purchased in "contiguous states" (NM, OK, LA, AR). Otherwise they have to be shipped to a FFL in Texas for transfer. Goofy stuff.
[/THREADJACK ALERT]

 

[aggie81]

The Texas Penal Code has never dealt with the concealed vs. open carry of a weapon while traveling. See Title 10 Chapter 46.
What we really, really need is just one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "No member of any government institution or agency is exempt from any law imposed upon the citizenry. All laws will apply equally to all residents of any affected jurisdiction". Some lawyer out there ought to be able to clean that up nicely.

 

[Gilk51]

I was concerned about just transporting a pistol/rifle to the gun range for practice. I asked at our local indoor range and heard that a pistol must be concealed and out-of-reach.

I always have the pistol in my gunbag (an obvious indication of going to the range with eye & ear protection plus other stuff) and located in the very back of my vehicle - in the Jeep it is all inside (no trunk).

 

[TexBiker]

I was concerned about just transporting a pistol/rifle to the gun range for practice. I asked at our local indoor range and heard that a pistol must be concealed and out-of-reach.

That seems to be a loose interpretation of the federal statute concerning interstate transport of firearms.

Per the NRA (

:

A provision of federal law serves as a defense to state or local laws which would prohibit the passage of persons with firearms in interstate travel.

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess it to any other place where he may lawfully possess such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Necessary stops, like gasoline and rest, seem permissible.

This doesn't apply to intrastate travel. Of course, each state has its own set of laws and they vary widely.

 

[Voltar]

Bottom line for those concerned about the CHL costs... what is it going to cost you to defend yourself in court against a "carrying" charge? You face a CHL cost of approx $250 for five years of coverage versus a lawyer's fee of $250 for one hour of his time.

I have the CHL. I don't think it cost me 250 bones. I can tell you this, if you get stopped and show your DL and your CHL documents together to police treat you a bit better. If you have the CHL they know that you basically try to follow the law and that you don't have any fellonies.

If you are going to carry a handgun without a CHL, I think you are asking for trouble. At the very best, you are going to have to lie about the gun or face some uncomfortable questions you you tell the truth.

Still, a CHL does not let you carry a gun anywhere you darn well please. It still has restrictions.

 

[SRADkneedragger]

OK
try this on for size!
Working as a bounty Hunter and a Repoman I had 2 jobs in New Mexico(a Repo and a Bond Jumper) Packed my bags, got my paperwork, Maps etc, cash for the trip, and jumped in my truck. 4 blocks from my residence I get stopped for "Failure to come to a complete stop" by some rookie. He asks if I have any drugs/drug paraphenalia or weapons. I reply" I have an emergency kit containing needles, sutures, compresses, etc etc, I also have 2 bulletproof vests, 2 or 3 cans of Pepper Spray and 2 handguns in a hardside(aluminum LOCKED) case.
The guy goes APE**** !! handcuffs me can't find the guns gets me out of the patrol car makes me tell him where they are, puts me back in patrol car. Can't find keys,, Gets me out of Patrol car makes me show him where keys are and which one, puts me back. Charges me with 2 counts of "Unlawful Carried Weapon" Impounds my truck.
Now the fun starts
$800 to bond out
$78 to get my truck out of Impound
$1600 to hire lawyer
$240 court cost
Rough total $2800
Charges dropped, arrest expunged from my record, guns returned. Bottom line it cost me
$2800
To prove I was innocent! And you better believe that the lawyer was a good investment the DA started out wanting 2 yrs probation and keeping my guns!
Afterwards my lawyer says go get a CHL I went took the course, found out the problems concerning CHL and criminal tresspass(I AM a REPOMAN after all!)
Lawyer calls me back and says" Why not carry a 'Long Gun'?" Turns out you can carry a LOADED long gun as long as it is plain sight! The only downside that my lawyer could find is that with increasing gun owner responsibility laws there could be some degree of liability if the gun was stolen. Simple: trigger lock and a cable lock, locked when out of the vehicle, unlocked when you get in! Perfectly legal!
As an after thought:
The first week that I had the Shotgun(Chrome Plated 12 Ga. Pump cut down to 31" overall) in the window Me and my wife got stopped about 10 or 12 times. First question,,,,"Is that loaded?" Answer "Yes" Second Question"Why are you carrying a Shotgun?" Answer "Look what I do for a living would YOU want to be out here unarmed?"
Eventually I got tired of the crap and started asking why I was stopped and telling them that I had the gun because I could! Then I finally got REALLY annoyed and wrote the last officers name, badge # and car # down and the time of night location etc etc. He asked me what I was doing and I replied that I was tired of being harrased and that I intended to contact my attorney and the Police departments Internal Affairs division. Strangely enough that was the last traffic stop for,,,,, No License plate light,,,etc etc.
In defense of LEO's I understand Profiling (most of you have seen my pic) Long hair, mustache goatee, late night, large amount of cash, gun, dressed in black,,, I know what it looks like. I also understand that they want guns out of the hands of criminals(AND EVERYONE ELSE!)
Also I have never had gun issues with DPS or Sherriffs.
But the fact of the matter is this, somewhere along the line the system has failed us.
It has changed from innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the accuser
to
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON YOU TO PROVE YOU DID'NT BREAK THE LAW!
I did'nt break ANY laws yet it cost me $2800 to prove I was innocent!
Rant over now

 

[brewer90]

I never worry about it. I have a CHL.

Ditto. And you don't have to worry about carrying in the 27 other states (soon to be 29) that have CHL reciprocity with Texas.

 

[Texas T]

However, I later learned that Texas state law specifically states that long guns can only be purchased and brought back to Texas if they were purchased in "contiguous states" (NM, OK, LA, AR). Otherwise they have to be shipped to a FFL in Texas for transfer. Goofy stuff.

Here's the law...

§ 46.07. INTERSTATE PURCHASE. A resident of this state
may, if not otherwise precluded by law, purchase firearms,
ammunition, reloading components, or firearm accessories in
contiguous states. This authorization is enacted in conformance
with Section 922(b)(3)(A), Public Law 90-618, 90th Congress.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 46.08 by Acts 1993, 73rd
Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I don't see where it prevents you from buying in other states and bringing it home with you. The above law just clarifies that you can buy from contiguous states. Why that law is needed is beyond me.

If you do a FTF with a private owner in another state and you purchase it within the laws of that state, why should Texas care where you bought it? What about guns you owned prior to moving to Texas? Wouldn't that fall under a similar situation?

I will be having an M1 Carbine coming to me from Arizona and I have no intention of having it shipped to an FFL. Federal law specifically allows for having a personal firearm shipped from one address to another if you are the shipper/recepient.

 

[TexBiker]

Here's the law...

§ 46.07. INTERSTATE PURCHASE. A resident of this state
may, if not otherwise precluded by law, purchase firearms,
ammunition, reloading components, or firearm accessories in
contiguous states. This authorization is enacted in conformance
with Section 922(b)(3)(A), Public Law 90-618, 90th Congress.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 46.08 by Acts 1993, 73rd
Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I don't see where it prevents you from buying in other states and bringing it home with you. The above law just clarifies that you can buy from contiguous states. Why that law is needed is beyond me.

I agree with you. However, the Texas AG disagrees with us. In 1998, I received a letter from the AG's office that states their interpretation of the law as I posted above. It's pure silliness and virtually impossible to enforce.

If you do a FTF with a private owner in another state and you purchase it within the laws of that state, why should Texas care where you bought it?

Again I agree with you, but federal law comes into play there. Federal law states that an interstate firearms transaction is legal only if it meets the regulations of both states. I violated that one a few times before I became aware the the Texas "contiguous states" rule.

What about guns you owned prior to moving to Texas? Wouldn't that fall under a similar situation?

Not really since those firearms were acquired prior to Texas residency.

I will be having an M1 Carbine coming to me from Arizona and I have no intention of having it shipped to an FFL. Federal law specifically allows for having a personal firearm shipped from one address to another if you are the shipper/recepient.

Technically, that would violate Texas state law (and federal law since it's an interstate transaction that violates the regulations of one of the states) unless you have an 01 or 03 FFL. But then, you'll have a better chance of willing the lottery than being prosecuted for it.

 

[Texas T]

In doing more research on the NRA-ILA site I found info to back up both of our positions...

"An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser`s state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor`s state of residence."

This first part would apply to you and the second part (due to the M1 being willed to me) would apply to me.


"A person may ship a rifle or shotgun to himself, in care of a person who lives in another state, for purposes of hunting."

If you can ship it for the purposes of hunting, it would seem to stand that you can ship it back home to yourself after hunting.

 

[bushwhacker]

The new revision to the law was not designed to make it easy for criminals to carry - in fact, if they are a felon the new law still does not provide them any defense. The law was designed to help Farmer John, Rancher Billy Bob, and Grandma Susie carry a handgun in their vehicle for personal protection without fear of prosecution. People like my mom and step-dad that have no interest, inclination (and possibly no ability), to take and pass a CHL course. My stepdad has carried in his truck for probably the last 40 years but I have serious doubt that he could pass the CHL range qualification test.

It's just a way for them to feel more safe about being in the car/truck.

You misunderstand. I agree with your interpretation of the law and the way it is supposed to impact the average citizen. That is reality. However, politics is about perception, not reality.

Reality is only important to the extent that it affects perception.

Elected officials are going to do what will make a good sound bite on the 6 o'clock news. They care about what gets them the most votes not how those actions will affect the average citizen.!!!!!

 

[TexBiker]

In doing more research on the NRA-ILA site I found info to back up both of our positions...

"An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser`s state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor`s state of residence."

The NRA oversimplified that law. The actual statuted read:

A person may only buy a firearm within the person's own state, except that he or she may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws applicable in the state of sale and the state where the purchaser resides. [18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29]

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-state source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's state of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer. [18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29]

This first part would apply to you and the second part (due to the M1 being willed to me) would apply to me.

Ah...well, bequests are a different animal altogether and subject to different rules. It's not your average out-of-state acquisition method.

"A person may ship a rifle or shotgun to himself, in care of a person who lives in another state, for purposes of hunting."

If you can ship it for the purposes of hunting, it would seem to stand that you can ship it back home to yourself after hunting.

That's absolutely true and I do it several times a year when I hunt out of state. However, I acquire the firearms prior to leaving Texas.

 

[Tourmeister]

Sometimes I have to wonder... Just what was it that the people who wrote some of these laws thought they were accomplishing with some of these rules. For the life of me, the only thing I can logically and reasonably conclude is that they were simply trying to make it hard to legally buy, sell, transport and in general own guns. Obviously criminals are not going to worry about this nonsense. It is the law abiding citizen that gets tripped up and nailed even when trying to be legal

 

[Graubart]

I certainly don't have anything substantive to add to this discussion....just wanted to add my vote for obtaining a CHL. I know it's a lot of money, and I was certainly hacked about having to spend good money that could have gone for farkles, but it's worth it for the peace of mind.

I'm glad that they changed the laws regarding "traveling", but it still sounds like you may be open for a hassle from some overzealous LEO or DA. I live a quiet life and would like to keep it that way.

 

[Texas T]

You misunderstand. I agree with your interpretation of the law and the way it is supposed to impact the average citizen. That is reality. However, politics is about perception, not reality.

Reality is only important to the extent that it affects perception.

Elected officials are going to do what will make a good sound bite on the 6 o'clock news. They care about what gets them the most votes not how those actions will affect the average citizen.!!!!!

I guess I did misunderstand. I don't understand why a DA would think prosecuting Joe Average would make himself look good in the eyes of a CHL holder. As a CHL holder I endorse the new law.

 

[Tx Rider]

Sometimes I have to wonder... Just what was it that the people who wrote some of these laws thought they were accomplishing with some of these rules. For the life of me, the only thing I can logically and reasonably conclude is that they were simply trying to make it hard to legally buy, sell, transport and in general own guns. Obviously criminals are not going to worry about this nonsense. It is the law abiding citizen that gets tripped up and nailed even when trying to be legal

I think a lot of times the convoluted laws are in response to a specific crime that got everyone riled up, and the elected guys thought they had to do something about it and in a knejerk reaction to pacify their voters passing laws that make little sense but they can say they did something. After the fact the reasoning behind what they did isn't obvious without the context of that one crime that sparked it.

 

[Tracker]

(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

I promise to never carry a gun in Plainview, TX

 

[1TallTXn]

I've got a CHL and i've had to deal with LEO's a few times since I got it. everytime they just glanced at it and handed it back to me.

on the bike I carry the gun in the tank bag, I'd rather have it on me, but I don't need anything else to hurt me if I fall off!

The transition from tank bag to person is the tricky part. if it looks like its going to be too much hassle, I just haul the tank bag with me.

 

[sharkey]

Wow, a lot of interesting comments and kudos to those who looked up actual laws and did some research.

I agree the CHL is the way to go (got mine & I'm LEO) but it chaps my *** that a law was passed to clarify traveling and lawyers want to muck it up. Truth is, citizens shouldn't have to be licensed to bear arms but in the name of safety we decide to overlook parts of the constitutution. In the name of safety, we give up freedoms ie. The Patriot Act - nothing patriotic about it. The novel idea would be to lock real criminals up, close our borders, and hunt down terrorists but I digress...

I don't want to start ranting, I just wanted to give you'll a heads up from some info I obtained. Be safe.

 

[D'artagnan]

Technically, that would violate Texas state law (and federal law since it's an interstate transaction that violates the regulations of one of the states) unless you have an 01 or 03 FFL. But then, you'll have a better chance of willing the lottery than being prosecuted for it.

No. You can ship long guns to yourself w/o using an FFL. This is usefull when you are hunting out of state, moving etc. Go to the BATF website. They have a FAQ there that covers this very question.

 

[TexBiker]

No. You can ship long guns to yourself w/o using an FFL. This is usefull when you are hunting out of state, moving etc. Go to the BATF website. They have a FAQ there that covers this very question.

Yes, I covered that later in post #37. That only applies if you own a gun, ship it to your hunting location then ship it back. Texas state law prohibits this procedure if you go to a non-contigous state, acquire the gun in that state and then ship it back without using a FFL.

As I stated before, if an interstate firearms transaction violates the laws of one of the states involved, then it also violates the federal statute.

A person may only buy a firearm within the person's own state, except that he or she may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws applicable in the state of sale and the state where the purchaser resides. [18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29]

 

[gocatgo]

As a woman who regularly rides alone, the $250 or what ever I paid for the CHL was well worth the peace of mind. Of course, the CHL just made me legal, I'd been carrying while riding for years until the CHL was available. It's just not worth the risk to carry without the CHL - I don't want to depend on some DA's interpretation of the law.
And Nathan, the transitition from tankbag to person is accomplished easily with the use of a fanny pack. The pistola lives in the fanny pack when not on my person. Take the fanny pack with you and no one's the wiser.

 

[scratch]

...I did'nt break ANY laws yet it cost me $2800 to prove I was innocent!

Seems like there should be some kind of restitution available in a case like yours. What you had to endure is a serious injustice all by itself. The state has virtually unlimited resources at it's disposal to bring this sort of action against someone, while the individual has only what they can scrape together by themselves; it's a very one-sided fight. If you hadn't been able to hire a decent attorney, no telling how much worse it might have turned out.

 

[C-wagon]

You can go to almost any full line gun range and get a CHL for $130 first time out. They take care of everything.
I did mine for $120 now I am up for my first renewal for $75.

First time out it is 8 hours of class time.

 

[TexBiker]

You can go to almost any full line gun range and get a CHL for $130 first time out. They take care of everything.
I did mine for $120 now I am up for my first renewal for $75.

First time out it is 8 hours of class time.

Actually, the first class is 10hrs of class time unless something has changed recently. And don't forget that you have to add the state fee of $140 (less if senior citizen/indigent/LE/MIL/etc) on top of the class fee.