BILL ANALYSIS

 

 

                                                                                                                                      C.S.H.B. 823

                                                                                                                                              By: Keel

                                                                                                                       Criminal Jurisprudence

                                                                                                        Committee Report (Substituted)

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

§46.15(b) sets out the nonapplicability provisions to §46.02 (Unlawful Carrying Weapons).  Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who is traveling [§46.15(b)(3)].  The word "traveling" has been given various appellate interpretations but it has never been defined in statute.  As a result, persons who are traveling and therefore lawfully in possession of a firearm are frequently arrested and must later "prove their innocence" by asserting before a magistrate or jury the particular facts that constituted "traveling."

 

C.S.H.B. 823 amends §46.15 to clarify that a person is presumed to be traveling if the person is in a private motor vehicle, not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, and not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. The bill further amends Section 2.05 of the Penal Code to provide proper evidentiary instruction on the presumption.

 

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

 

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

C.S.H.B. 823 amends the Penal Code to clarify that a person is presumed to be traveling if the person is in a private motor vehicle, not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, and not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. The bill further amends Section 2.05 of the Penal Code to provide proper evidentiary instruction on the presumption.

 

EFFECTIVE DATE

 

September 1, 2005.

 

COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

 

The substitute differs from the original in that it restructures the language to create a new presumption in favor of the defendant with regarding to traveling. This differs from the original which created an exception to the prohibition of carrying a weapon. The change does not substantively change the outcome but rather is intended to clarify the language.