Arock wrote:Please provide a reference as this contradicts my understanding from reading other threads on this site. Specifically as it pertains to access to City of Dallas offices.
I will search for my reference.
The change was made in 2003 and was part of SB501. Specifically, the phrase "on the premises of" was added to TPC 46.03(a)(3) making it read: on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court.
Entire courthouse buildings are off-limits, as they house nothing but courtrooms and court offices. However, this is the basis for many to argue that the existence of a single courtroom or court office renders an entire building off-limits to CHL's. Some cities have used this erroneous contention to place a single court office in a building such as a city hall, then contend the entire building is off-limits.
This position ignores the statutory definition of "premises." The definition states, among other things, that a â€œpremisesâ€? includes a "building or part of a building." See TPC Â§46.03(c)(1) [i]adopting 46.035(f)(3).
The Legislative intent was to prohibit carrying in only those portions of the building where the activity that prompted the prohibition of handguns actually occurred, rather than the entire building. (This one really irritates me, as this was my definition and I was directly involved in the drafting, negotiating and ultimate adoption of this definition.)
So, the bottom line is some cities, counties and perhaps other governmental entities are misapplying Â§46.03(a)(3), but this should be addressed in 2007, rather than any test-case volunteers taking on the challenge!