I’m on the fence on this one. Is a CHL really needed?
In this article (a little dated) the district attorney comment is "If you read the new statute, it essentially does away with the concealed handgun law”

http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-concealed-gun-laws-loosen-6419621

The article discusses the traveling rule. The way the law used to read in Texas was that you could have a concealed firearm with you if you had over $200 cash, traveling over 2 or 3 counties with the intent to stay the night (and there was a third option, that escapes me at the moment). The change in the law (this happened 2 legislative sessions ago changed the law to just simply state "while traveling". Therefore you can have a concealed firearm in your vehicle while you are driving around. there is no more 2 or 3 county rule anymore.

This is ONLY for having a gun in your car, this does NOT include on you person. A CHL is needed to carry a concealed firearm on your self.

It also says "if you're caught carrying a concealed pistol on the street and don't have a permit, tell the cop you're walking between your car and your home, either getting ready to travel somewhere or coming home. The burden now falls on the police officer to prove you are not really "traveling," which Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins says is virtually impossible."

"Is a CHL really required?"

Not unless you get caught! I wouldn't count on officer just saying, "carry on"!

Lots of misconceptions about the old "traveling" rule. Long story short, there never was a set definition of "traveling". Only a few cases where the courts struggled with defining it in a particular situation before them.

The new law was poorly written and provides an affirmative defense to unlawful carry if one meets the "traveling" definition in the statute. In reality, it creates a presumption of "traveling" unless one falls through the trap doors set forth in the statute.

This presumption can be disproven if one a) one is questioned b)chooses to answer the questions and c)answers wrong. So, in theory, zealous officers/prosecutors could attempt to get around the presumption. Some did at first but ,in actual practice, this rarely happens anymore and even those without a CHL can now keep a handgun in their vehicle without fear of prosecution. (Carrying without a CHL is still very risky).

If I were carrying in my vehicle without a CHL, I would simply stand on the presumption created by the statute and not answer questions that might take me outside of the presumption.

(It would have been much easier to have written the law something to the effect that all non-felon, non-violent past, and mentally competent citizens may now carry in their vehicle.)

Some good info here

I was on the fence about it until I sided with the law. I get the whole "the Constitution is my permit" thing..."better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" etc...

CHL has gotten me out of a couple of tickets actually. The trooper knows you've passed state and federal background checks and are less likely to be a threat...but,its another way to tax the public. For example,
Drivers license= transportation tax
registration/inspection stickers= transportation tax
Fishing/hunting license= recreation tax

I don't agree with it "doing away" with the law, although it uses common sense to apply it now. It was pretty ridiculous that I couldn't legally buy a hand gun at a store and drive home with it since I wasn't "traveling".

The law has an exception for that and going to the range, repair shop, etc.

The old law did? I was under the impression it didn't. IIRC Harris county DA's were charging people anytime they found them with a handgun because there wasn't an exception built in.

A person engaged in a "hunting, fishing, or other lawful sporting activity" who is traveling to or is in the area where such activities are conducted may have the weapon used in such activity in their vehicle. This includes going to/from the range and the initial purchase of the weapon. It is still the law. Maybe someone who is more computer savvy than me can post a link.

I'm 53 years old and have always carried in my vehicle with no police issues. If your carrying concealed and are a lawful citizen you shouldn't worry. There wouldn't be an issue if these dang lawyers didn't get involved.

Agreed, I'm near 53 myself have had CHL for 16 years,I stopped worrying about,what "People" think! And someone else mentioned tickets earlier, I've never been told that I got out of a ticket,but since then If I recall , I'm 3-1 on ticket passes ,(3 slow downs Mr .."Ranger" and one sign here Sir!),since! I never got a pass before!
A CHL, or even the glove box carry, make you think more , much more aware of environment and at times can be a PIA!!! But I think it was Col Jeff Cooper that said ,"guns should be comforting not comfortable"...
I agree!

A CHL is needed as you should carry all the time.

Look at San Bernardino. I need to be more faithful in carrying every day. Laziness and comfort(or lack of) has me lackadaisical.

Yes sir.