Some worried by law that allows drivers to have weapon

The Dallas Morning News ^ | Saturday, January 19, 2008 | STEVE THOMPSON

[fortheDeclaration]

The lawyer we hired recommended that my husband plead guilty to disorderly conduct rather than risk going to trial. The CHL law was only a few weeks old and she said that the right to carry a gun while traveling had changed with the new law. Spending the night in the Williamson County drunk tank scared my husband pretty bad. We were young and had absolutely no experience the "the justice system", so dealing with bail, court, and all that was pretty scary to us. A weapons charge is pretty serious and if he had been found guilty (which he would have since the gun WAS in his truck), we thought that would have made him ineligible for a CHL for the rest of his life. The whole process was expensive, we were newly married and in the process of moving, and we were trying not to have to spend all of our house down payment on a lawyer, so we did what she told us to do. I'm glad the state has clarified the law, finally, but we'll never get our $4000 back. It still pisses me off a little.

I understood why you pled, I am just surprised that they charged you with anything, since it was their mistake!

[MeekOneGOP]

someone’s gotta keep the roadragers in check !! :)

[MeekOneGOP]

bump!

[Doe Eyes]

The author repeatedly tries to play up the ambiguity of the word "traveling" and gets no traction.

The old law required "traveling". The author correctly pointed out the problems with that requirement.

The new law does not require the driver to be traveling.

[kellyrae]

We asked if we could have the gun charge thrown out, since the original reason they found the gun in the truck was because of a clerical error about the suspended license. (A clerk had entered a refusal of a breathalizer on my husbands license instead of the right person's, taken it off, but then left on a fee pending, which caused his license to show up as suspended.)

The cop told my husband he was under arrest for driving with a suspended license. When my husband told him he didn't think that was correct, the cop told him that he had refused a breathalizer something like 5 years prior. My husband told him that must be a mistake, he had never been pulled over for DUI or refused a breathalizer, ever. I guess the cop thought he was lying.

So then when the cop found the gun during the search/inventory he got really mad and was yelling and screaming at my husband things like "What's this? What's the gun for? Why do you have a gun in here? Why didn't you tell me you had a gun in here?"

It didn't even occur to my husband to mention the gun. He was in shock that he was being handcuffed and put in the back of the police car after being told his license was suspended for refusing a breathalizer he didn't know anything about!

Anyway, they said that they would pursue the gun charge since it was found during an "inventory" prior to the towing, not a "search" and that those two things were somehow different. I still don't understand it. The whole experience was bad.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Sounds to me like he could get that expunged.

[Fido969]

"I think you have a lot of folks with criminal intentions that will get out of unlawful possession of a firearm because they fall within that definition of on their way to their car," he said.

"Criminal intentions"? Who decides that?

I guess you don't have to actually commit a crime anymore to lose your rights to a gun. A DA just has to decide you had some kind of criminal INTENTION.

[Fido969]

"If someone out there is carrying a gun, but they don't have a criminal record, and they haven't committed a crime, and they're not a member of a gang, that tool might be out of our box," Chief Waldrop said.

Well, there you go. Now the cops are upset because if you haven't committed a crime they can't arrest you.

[kellyrae]

Sounds to me like he could get that expunged.

It was all expunged long ago. That's part of why the whole process took 18 monthes -- at the end he had to "stay out of trouble" for 6 monthes, then followup to get it expunged. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that was part of what had to be done in order to qualify for the CHL.

[Ron H.]

In Arizona you can carry a gun pretty much anywhere, on your person, so long as it is clearly seen.

And that is the law that makes the most [logical] sense to me. Kudos for Arizona.

[sergeantdave]

Some worried by law that allows drivers to have weapon

Perky Katy kitsch news headlines

Some worried that media infiltrated by Marxists

Some worried that so-called journalists are hopeless idiots

Some worried that some are worried

[laotzu]

I love Texas!!

You are most welcome here anytime.

[Rick.Donaldson]

We’ve got the same law in Colorado too. No CCW required

[Rick.Donaldson]

The law is the same as the one here in CO.

You do not have to have any sort of permit to have a weapon in your vehicle, concealed. By law it is NOT CONSIDERED concealed in a vehicle even if it is “concealed”. The weapon can be on the driver or in the car.

I happen to have a concealed carry permit and usually have my weapon on me in the car ANYWAY. I know several folks who don’t have CCW permits and carry their weapons with them to the car, place it someplace in the car (usually next to them) and drive to where ever they are going.

[Regulator]

The law allows Texans to carry guns in their cars, even without a concealed handgun license

Oh the Horror.

This used to be commonplace. Now it's a big deal that a law explicitly allows it?