several prosecutors have voiced their opinions that this law, in it's present form, is simply a "feel good law". That means it was passed to appease certain groups, but really has no teeth. In essence, this law simply changes the presumption of traveling, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the State to prove otherwise. Before this law, the charge of Unlawfully Carrying forced the Defendant to prove he/she was traveling based on the definitions of traveling, i.e., traveling through two counties, as set forth in case law (there was no definition of traveling in the Penal Code). Now, if he/she is in a private vehicle, it is presumed he/she is traveling, however the state can, and probably will, now offer proof the person charged was not traveling based on the definition of traveling in, guess what, state case law. The state can show, for example, the person arrested for Unlawfully Carrying had perishable groceries in their vehicle or was going to work, etc., so consequently, they did not meet the test of traveling as defined by case law. This is called "rebuttal presumption" As in many laws, a lot will depend on the subjective reasoning of the officer. It has always been generally accepted by many Texas Peace Officers for Texans to carry weapons in their vehicles without a license. In these cases, more were not arrested than were. Mostly it depended on the attitude of both the officer and driver. Until new case law is established, or opinions set forth by the Attorney General, the same will hold true. The average citizen should always consider getting a concealed handgun license to prevent being arrested for Unlawfully Carrying and becoming the new case law, even with the presumption of traveling now going to the charged. It is certainly conceivable this law, by rewriting, could gain more teeth in the next several years, but for right now, nothing takes the place of the license to remove any doubt in the officer's mind.