HB823 effectively, though not expressly, overturns prior case law dealing with the scope of the term â€œtraveling,â€? but only insofar as we are talking about traveling in a â€œprivate motor vehicle.â€? No longer does someone traveling by private motor vehicle have to try to guess what constitutes â€œtravelingâ€? in the counties through which they plan to drive. The case law held everything from crossing a single county line to crossing multiple county lines, requiring an overnight stay and not being a normal route (i.e. traveling salesman). If you are in your car, and meet the other requirements, then you are presumed to be traveling, even if youâ€™re just going to the store for a gallon of milk.
However, the old case law is still applicable if you are traveling by a method other than in a â€œprivate motor vehicle.â€? Examples include bicycle, walking/hiking, boat, etc. True, most people donâ€™t â€œtravelâ€? by bicycle or on foot in the conventional sense, but some do. (My oldest son often rides his bicycle a 100 miles or more in races, sometimes over more than one day.)
On the issue of a CHL notifying a LEO you are armed if asked for an ID, I think the courts will likely hold that the CHL notification requirement still applies, in spite of HB823. HB823 is silent on the issue, so it does not override the CHL statute by timing and implication. Secondly, the notification requirement is in the CHL statute, applies to all CHLâ€™s, and makes no exceptions. I have been asked if the concealment requirement applies to a CHL carrying his handgun on his own property. I do not believe there are any cases on point, but when on your own property, you are not carrying pursuant to the CHL statute, thus I do not believe the appellate courts would uphold a conviction for failure to conceal. (I also doubt a reasonable DA would accept the charges.) The same argument could be made about the notification requirement when stopped by a LEO, but I think itâ€™s more likely with that fact pattern that the charges would be accepted and the appellate courts would uphold the conviction. The rationale would be that â€œthe specific controls over the generalâ€? combined with a recognition of the actor being on his own property.
Remember, until we see some appellate opinions, if any are forthcoming, this is merely Cotton On The Law, which is worth every penny you've paid for it.