I believe that is correct. The next section of the linked-to law, at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.go

I believe that is correct. The next section of the linked-to law, at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm , gives an example: > It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person who possesses or promotes material or a device proscribed by this section does so for a bona fide medical, psychiatric, judicial, legislative, or law enforcement purpose. I think this is the right description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuttable_presumption Here's an example for "Killing deer by use of certain lights; acts raising presumption of attempt to kill.", from https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title29.1/chapter5/section29.1-523/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title29.1/chapter5/secti... . > The flashing of a light attached to any vehicle or a spotlight or flashlight from any vehicle between a half hour after sunset and half hour before sunrise by any person or persons, then in possession of a firearm, crossbow, or bow and arrow or speargun, without good cause, shall raise a presumption of an attempt to kill deer in violation of this section. Every person in or on any such vehicle shall be deemed a principal in the second degree and subject to the same punishment as a principal in the first degree. Here's another, for fishing: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-310-110 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=220-310-110 > Possession of fish or shellfish while using gear in violation of the provisions of this section is a rebuttable presumption that the fish or shellfish were taken with such gear