Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Tips for those writing law review articles | Main | Florida self-defense bills introduced in Michigan »

Commentary on new Texas law

Posted by David Hardy · 14 September 2005 09:26 AM

Scott Henson, who testified for the ACLU in favor of the new Texas law, has a commentary on how it's being implemented. Or not implemented.

More below....

The former Texas law outlawed carrying by non-CCW permitees unless a person was "travelling" (a proviso that dates to the last century). There was no definition of travelling ... was it across town, on a walk, only to another city, or what? The new statute says a person is presumed to be travelling if they have a concealed firearm in a vehicle and are essentially not a bad guy (felon, gang member, etc).

Problem is that law enforcement in some areas is ignoring it, on the principle that it's a presumption, and you can rebut presumptions with evidence. So one has told his people to arrest unless the person is going on an overnight trip. If a person wants to argue the presumption protects them, they can tell it to the judge.

A thought: if TX follows the usual standard, an affirmative defense (which this is) has to be established by the Defendant with a preponderence of the evidence (more likely than not to be true), and then the prosecution must try to refute it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, tho, the presumption would mean the Defendant *always* has established it at the outset. In that case, might the arresting officer be open to a false arrest suit? At the time of the arrest, he knows the person has an affirmative defense. If he does not CYA by questioning, to get some evidence to argue that the person wasn't travelling, or if the info he gets does not show that the defense is inapplicable (gun wasn't concealed, person was a bad guy, etc.) isn't he making an arrest without probable cause (variously defined, but at least strong suspicion this guy is breaking the law)?

· contemporary issues