Actually, this is all wrong technically. There in fact IS a traveling assumption for motor vehicles, codified in TPC 46.02 by specifically stating that carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle is not a crime. The "traveller assumption" in this state is therefore not a defense to prosecution, it is an exemption from prosecution in set circumstances (otherwise it's not an assumption as the officer can lawfully arrest you and let you convince a judge you didn't commit a crime). Texas does this a lot especially concerning weapons; they make a weapon or carry of a weapon illegal and then define exceptions to the prohibition. It's similar to Florida's permitless CCW in their Statutes Section 790.25. The previous version of 46.02 defines "travelling" as a circumstance in which the person has not committed an offense, but requires no presumption on the part of the officer. The change makes it absolutely clear that a person carrying a weapon concealed in a vehicle is lawful unless the person openly displays the weapon, is a gang member or is committing a crime more severe than a traffic violation.KBCraig wrote:To sum up: there is no longer a traveling presumption or defense to prosecution if you are carrying in your car.
Traveling does still apply if you aren't in a motor vehicle, but it has still not been defined. Cross country bicycle trips, wagon trains, horseback trail riding, hitchhiking or walking... there are lots of forms of travel.
However, "travelling" as it was loosely stated is no longer an exemption. You must be in your home, motor vehicle or travelling directly between the two in order to not be in violation of 46.02. There are a few exceptions through some quirks in Texas' definition of a "motor vehicle". In short, anything that is required to follow Texas traffic laws when on public thoroughfares is considered a motor vehicle. That means a horse and carriage, bicycle, dirt bike, ATV, dune buggy, golf cart, etc are all motor vehicles whether they technically fit the term or not. Horseback riding may or may not be OK; I don't believe it's illegal to ride a horse in public, but it is not defined as a motor vehicle. Either way in most cases regarding horses, you're on private property or out in the boonies, and if you are allowed by both State law and the landowner to carry a weapon on that property without a permit, it doesn't make a difference whether you're on foot or on horseback.
Walking is a DEFINITE no-no; the travelling clause in its current form was stricken for that exact reason. In the absence of any other definition, if you are moving from point A to point B you are travelling, and thus the vague definition allowed LEOs to go both ways; you either were only "travelling" in such a narrow set of circumstances as to be useless to most residents, or you're "travelling" whenever you're propelling yourself over the ground by any means. The clarification now means being in or on a motor vehicle is "travelling", period. Walking as a form of travelling may be technically correct, but it makes TPC 46.02 unenforceable and Subchapter 411(H) of the GC meaningless except for TABC signage, and thus it was stricken in favor of a clearer exemption that maintains the spirit of other existing law.