trying to find laws about notifying an officer you are carrying

[TXGunNut]

I think its a courtesy/common sense thing, surprises during a traffic stop are something to be avoided. Back before the CHL days we knew folks were carrying but in most cases if they weren't causing problems we didn't want to know about it. I knew several upstanding citizens who carried on a regular basis. Last I heard the travelling provision was a defense to prosecution and a poor excuse for not getting a license. I got my CHL while still a peace officer and learned more about carry laws in CHL class than most cops did @ the time.

[gotthegoods]

In TN we are not required to notify, but our DL and HCP numbers are the same, so a TN LEO running a TN DL will know about the HCP.

It is accepted as common courtesy to offer our HCP with the DL in the event of a traffic stop.

[JohnKSa]

Last I heard the travelling provision was a defense to prosecution and a poor excuse for not getting a license.

There have been several changes in TX handgun laws in the last few legislative sessions. Basically it is no longer an offense to carry a handgun in a vehicle as long as it is concealed and subject to a few other very reasonable restrictions that will be automatically satisfied by any law-abiding citizen.

[TXGunNut]

Thanks for the update, John. I'm guessing it was part of the castle doctrine that I'm not up to speed on. Travelling was never properly defined in the Texas Penal Code in my day but was generally held to mean "travelling from one county, through another, to a third county with the intention of staying overnight," or so we were taught. Another little-known defense was carrying large sums of money, saw one ill-advised arrest tossed for that reason.
I still think the castle doctrine or travelling exception is a poor substitute for the training offered in any well-taught CHL class.

[JohnKSa]

Travelling was never properly defined in the Texas Penal Code in my day but was generally held to mean "travelling from one county, through another, to a third county with the intention of staying overnight," or so we were taught.

Correct. Unfortunately, in the absence of an official definition, judges could choose their own definitions.

The legislature first attempted to patch the problems with old law by saying that a person in a vehicle was "presumed to be travelling" which placed the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate that the person was not travelling. Several DAs in large TX cities banded together and basically made it public that they would instruct officers in their area to question any person stopped for traffic violations in such a way that the person would be likely to destroy the presumption of travelling with his answer. The legislature didn't take kindly to the DAs attempt to nullify their hard work and, in the next legislative session, passed a law that is "DA proof".

...poor substitute for the training offered in any well-taught CHL class.

I like the fact that having a handgun in the car without a CHL is no longer an offense, however I agree that a CHL class has a lot of good information in it. On more than one occasion I've advised people who have no intention of ever possessing a gun outside their own home to take the deadly force section of a TX CHL class just so they'll know the self-defense laws of their state.