TexasCHLforum.com

ninjabread wrote:

Signs will be posted alerting fairgoers that there is a ban on guns and machetes.

I'm all set.

This might work better...

TxLobo wrote:Oh this one ought to be good..

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/City ... 71651.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder where their City Attorney got his degree?

Another issue voted on at city council on Monday was the enforcement of a gun law in the town.
The law, according to Howard, was already in effect. However, it could not be enforced until the city hung official signs.
The law states that concealed handguns are not permitted on city property, even if the gun owner has a Concealed Handgun License.
The exception to the law is city employees who receive permission -- and also have a CHL.

Police officers in uniform are exempt from any such law forbidding a weapon. But when off duty, they fall under the same regulations as city employees who wish to carry a concealed weapon on city property.

"We need to protect our staff, our city council people, our police officers, our citizens that come to our meetings as well," she said.
City property, Howard said, includes city hall, the community center, the library and, once it's built, the town's park.
She said the measure is proactive, not reactive, and that no previous incidences led to this decision.

From a Cracker-Jacks box.

cmtexas wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:Amusement parks are not statutorily restricted...

How do you figure?

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.


(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

If there is a school bake-sale in the parking lot, or the marching band is practicing there, then yes, it's off limits. "Parking" is not a school sponsored activity.

But 46,035 defines Premises as:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

So school parking lots are not part of the "premises" of the school, and are not off limits to CHL.
And additionally they can't enforceably post 30.06 because the property is owned by the Govt. (Public Schools)

jjordan@fpctx.edu wrote:Has anyone tested the theory that the sign has to 30.06 compliant? It would seem to me that if a business owner does not want someone to carry a concealed handgun on his premesis he has the right to make that stipulation, no matter what kind of sign he posts. I have been an instructor for a few years now and I always tell my students that if there is any kind of sign at all they should not enter the premesis with a handgun, unless they would like to be a test case. We have already established on this forum that there are a lot of LEOs who do not know the law themselves. I do not have the time or money it would probably take to fight a case like this. Does anyone know if there is any case law on this? I have not been able to find any precedents.

Sorry if this is the wrong thread to post this...

First... Welcome to the forum!

This has been discussed many times here.

Basically, there are three approaches that can be taken by an instructor.

1) "All signs are indicative of intent to restrict gun carry, and therefore should be obeyed even if non-compliant. And yadda yadda about ignorant LEOs." This does NOT agree with Texas law.

2) "Any sign that does not meet the strict definition of a 30.06 sign is meaningless to a CHL holder, and should be ignored." Although this agrees with Texas law, it may in some rare instances cause issues for the license holder.

3) "Here is what the law says about how to give effective notice that carry is not allowed: yadda, yadda, yadda. And here are some possible issues that might arise. yadda, yadda, yadda. You need to decide what you're comfortable with, and act appropriately given the tradeoffs between the risk of meeting an uninformed LEO, and the lack of the ability to protect yourself and your family."

Obviously, the third option is what I propose as the most helpful to your students. IMO, either of the first two are a disservice. Keep in mind that you are teaching adults, not children. They should be given all the relevant information, then allowed to make their own decisions. Yes, I would feel bad if a student of mine got into legal trouble by ignoring a non-compliant sign. HOWEVER, I would feel even worse if the student (or a family member) were to be seriously injured or killed because he disarmed before entering a non-compliant-signed area.

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.

Maybe. I meant that a city doing this was correctly applying the law by making the entire building off limits, but taking advantage of it by putting something in there that wouldn't normally be there.

I would like to think that since the definition of 'premises' is "...building or portion of a building...", that they would be restricted to making only the smallest reasonable portion of that building off limits. I suppose it would take a court case to set precedent.

C-dub wrote: If you are referring to this post from Charles, I think there is a difference between the city that has done this by putting a "clerk's" office in City Hall and declaring it off limits than an actual Court. Again, I could be wrong, but I thought the intent of this request was to point out how the statute was being abused by cities, not that it was being applied incorrectly. I believe, that his example of a city putting a court clerk's office in City Hall and declaring the entire building off limits is legal, but severely abuses and takes advantage of the statute.

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

I would contend that the highlighted portion is a distinction without a difference. If it's being mis-applied, it's being abused.

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: And KeithB -- Voting is ideally suited to the "portion of the building" definition, as (at least to my knowledge) there is always a well-defined delineation of the voting area. There are additional laws -- no cell phone use, no electioneering, etc. -- that need to be enforced by the poll personnel in the polling area. And I would think it would be unusual for a person to have to walk through that area to get to some other part of the building. They only want voter traffic through the polling place. But yes, you are right that you'd want to steer clear of that area if you are armed.

In rural areas it is not uncommon to have early voting in the local grocery/general store, city hall which has only one door, etc. They would normally not have segregated entrances so could be, as the Brits say, 'a sticky wicket'.

EDIT TO ADD: And to calarify, the voting area is in teh main hall in the courthouse, or right in front area of the store, so you had to pass through it to get into the other areas.

Because voters and shoppers go thru the same door, does not mean the door is part of the voting area. Any more than voters and shoppers parking in the same lot would make the lot part of the voting area. Even in rural areas, are not the voting machines/booths/tables in a segregated area? Poll workers have authority within so many feet of where voting actually takes place.

I guess if they really have the voting booths in the same isle with the baked beans, that isle would be off-limits. It would also be off-limits for cellphone use and politicking.

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote:Well, at first you thought that it might only apply to the area where the voting was occurring and not the entire building. Then I said that it was the "premises." Then you added the next section that also included "or a portion of the building." I thought this would make even more of the place off limits and you were trying to be funny. I thought it was funny. I didn't think you were funny trying to be funny. I thought you were trying to be funny and I thought you were.

In a good way, honest. Did I misunderstand you? Were you not trying to be funny?

Are you trying to be funny? Why would a portion of the building be more than the whole building?

I've spent the last 15 minutes trying to explain myself and trying not to offend you because that's not what I wanted to do in the first place. Then, all of a sudden it hit me. I understand what you're thinking about. A portion of a building, as in maybe just the voting area. OMG

Look at the pretty trees. Oh, there's a forest there. I'm so sorry for the confusion!

Okay... no offense taken. Yes, that's what I originally said, just the voting area. Frankly, I don't see any other way to interpret what I said, but I'll let it go now.

And KeithB -- Voting is ideally suited to the "portion of the building" definition, as (at least to my knowledge) there is always a well-defined delineation of the voting area. There are additional laws -- no cell phone use, no electioneering, etc. -- that need to be enforced by the poll personnel in the polling area. And I would think it would be unusual for a person to have to walk through that area to get to some other part of the building. They only want voter traffic through the polling place. But yes, you are right that you'd want to steer clear of that area if you are armed.

C-dub wrote:Well, at first you thought that it might only apply to the area where the voting was occurring and not the entire building. Then I said that it was the "premises." Then you added the next section that also included "or a portion of the building." I thought this would make even more of the place off limits and you were trying to be funny. I thought it was funny. I didn't think you were funny trying to be funny. I thought you were trying to be funny and I thought you were.

In a good way, honest. Did I misunderstand you? Were you not trying to be funny?

Are you trying to be funny? Why would a portion of the building be more than the whole building?

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: But still probably only the area used for voting. Not necessarily the entire building. Just as they can't post the entire building for a government meeting.

Nope! It's the "premises." I did get it wrong that it was the entire day.

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

Nope back atcha!
PC46.03(c)(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035
PC46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building...

You trumped me by including the next part that made even more of the place off limits than what you originally thought? That's funny.

Huh?

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: But still probably only the area used for voting. Not necessarily the entire building. Just as they can't post the entire building for a government meeting.

Nope! It's the "premises." I did get it wrong that it was the entire day.

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

Nope back atcha!
PC46.03(c)(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035
PC46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building...

Keith B wrote:

C-dub wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:Little Elm Tx. Went down to city hall today to vote. The entire building is posted improperly. I tried to get a picture of the sign but couldn't. I'll try again later. The sign wasn't even close.

The building contains the public library and several other offices such as Planning&Zoning etc.

I could be way off here, but I don't think a polling place has to be posted at all. You just gotta know that you can't carry on the premises anytime on the day of polling.

That is correct, so if you vote at the City Hall, it would be off limits when it is a polling place, city owned or not.

But still probably only the area used for voting. Not necessarily the entire building. Just as they can't post the entire building for a government meeting.