Harris County D.A. Responds to Criticism of Stand On Revised Travel Law

In response to the Harris County D.A.'s statement on the newly revised Texas statute on gun possession and travel, I wrote him the following letter:

District Attourney Rosenthal,

Your stance on the enforcement of the Texas handgun travel law is unacceptable. The intent of the State Legislature and Governor in passing this law revision was and is very clear. Your declaration of intent to arrest and prosecute drivers without CCL’s found to be carrying firearms in their automobiles is just as clearly an effort to disregard the will of the people of Texas and Harris County as reflected in the State Legislature. In doing so you are in direct violation of your sworn duties. All data show that the restriction of gun possession leads to higher, not lower crime. The Bill of Rights guarantees each American Citizen the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Your decision in this case not only thwarts will of the Texas Legislature, but flies in the face of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your disrespect for the will of the people is both shameful and arrogant. Your Liberal agenda will not succeed.

Enjoy your brief day in the sun, it will not last. You may rest assured that you will not be re-elected to office. We gun owners will actively campaign against your re-election.

Sincerely,

Will Malven

The Harris County D.A.'s Response:

Well, as it so happens I am in favor of gun ownership. I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, and I intend to do exactly that. There are a number of instances where the law permits the possession of handguns in cars we recognize those laws, but I believe that they should be sorted out in court, and not on the streets.

Consider this scenario. Police officers stop a car for a traffic violation. While getting ID from the driver, he sees the butt of a handgun protruding from under the driver's seat. Office asks the driver where he is going. Driver answers that he is going to the liquor store 2 miles from his house. Driver meets the other requisites for "traveling". On the way back from the adult beverage store, driver sees someone who he thinks "disrespected" him some time back and shoots his acquaintance. Victim survives, finds out the police knew about the gun, the settled law is that he was not traveling; officer and his municipality are sued by the victim.

Point is that not everyone is as judicious about gun ownership as you and your friends probably are.

If the legislature had really meant to allow anyone who wanted to carry a handgun (note, the law does not apply to shoulder weapons) in their car, why do you suppose they did not repeal the laws with respect concealed carry permits? Presumptions are simply that. For instance all persons charged with crimes are presumed to be innocent, but that doesn't mean that they are in fact innocent.
By the way, I'm up for re-election in '08.

My Response to His Response:

Sir,

With all due respect, I do not believe in running a justice system out of fear of a law suit. I also, if I am reading the new statute correctly have to say that if the officer can see the butt of the hand gun then it is in plain view and in violation of the statute because 1. it can be seen, and 2. because he is clearly not “traveling” by the definition of traveling in the state law. Lastly, I was not aware that it was settled law to arrest someone just because you think they might possibly commit a crime, as per your example. A policeman is not prescient and has no way of knowing that the driver is going to shoot someone who “disrespected” him. In your example, the policeman already knows the driver’s destination so his possession of the firearm is in clear violation of the law.

The presumption of innocence also certainly doesn’t mean they are guilty either. As to the question “why don’t they repeal the laws with respect concealed carry permits?” It is irrelevant, the intent of the law makers is absolutely clear with regard to this revised statute, otherwise there would have been no reason to rewrite the statute to include the “assumption” of travel.

I and my friends are fully aware of the date of your next re-election bid and we will not forget. It is unfortunate that you have taken such a belligerent attitude toward the people in this county who, as law abiding citizens should be some of your strongest supporters.

Sincerely,

Not only was his response rude, it was superficial and insufficient. He published virtually the same explanation in the letters part of the editorial page. Mind you this is the D.A. who doesn't believe that contaminated DNA evidence is sufficient cause to retry cases.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below