TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:I'm thinking you could argue that Racetrack seating is part of a "building" by the PC Chapter 30 meaning. The Racetracks (parimutuel betting tracks, is what they are referring to specifically) that I have been to are similar to stadiums where the seating is "on" a "building" that encloses the betting windows, concessions, bathrooms, etc. Where I don't think the term building would apply would be outdoor open bleachers that were not "enclosing" anything.

Example: I don't think the 46.035 definition of premises applies to Fair Park in Dallas where there are numerous 51% licensee stands, but you don't go in them to get your drink.

Well, that's what I thought before I knew there was a definition. It seemed to me that building, in its broadest sense, would be a construction including bleachers, and, without a definition we would either assume that or interpret that it didn't include those kinds of structures. In the latter case allowing us to sit in the bleachers by the strict reading of the rule.

tex

ScottDLS wrote:

thetexan wrote:That's not true.

There are sectional definitions and global definition which apply to those specific sections or to the whole. In this case there is no global or sectional definition for "building". As per SI the court would first use ordinary meaning and usage absent any legal definition. And in the pursuit of that might very well take a previous definition from another section. Not because they must but because they may, as long as it doesn't do violence to reasonability or cause the greater statute to become unconstitutional where a different interpretation might not.

Regardless, I find no definition, and if not, we must admit that the court would have to interpret and thus we are at the mercy of whatever that interpretation might be.

tex

This is true.

In the penal code, in the absence of a specific definition that applies to a particular chapter, you go to any other definition in the PENAL CODE, then elsewhere in Texas statutes, then to the common definition.

When a definition states "in this chapter" or "in this subsection" "such and such means..." that's exactly and precisely what it means. That was the case for the old definition of concealed handgun that only applied in 411. That is the case of premises which means one thing in 46.02 and something else in 46.035.

--- Or are you saying, for example The Chapter 46 definition of "intoxication" is left to interpretation despite having a legal definition in Chapter 49. I wonder why DPS put it in the CHL-16?

You may be right. I guess in the absence of sectional definitions, definitions elsewhere would be used.

-----The definition of building is in Chapter 30, just like the definition of weapon, handgun, and firearm is in chapter 46. For trespassing in Chapter 30 the Chapter 46 definitions of these terms applies.


Then we are back to the original question and problem. If that is so then sitting in the stands at a racetrack, not being an enclosed structure, would not be a "building or portion of a building" under the "premises" of a racetrack definition, huh?

tex

That's not true.

There are sectional definitions and global definition which apply to those specific sections or to the whole. In this case there is no global or sectional definition for "building". As per SI the court would first use ordinary meaning and usage absent any legal definition. And in the pursuit of that might very well take a previous definition from another section. Not because they must but because they may, as long as it doesn't do violence to reasonability or cause the greater statute to become unconstitutional where a different interpretation might not.

Regardless, I find no definition, and if not, we must admit that the court would have to interpret and thus we are at the mercy of whatever that interpretation might be.

tex

TVGuy wrote:Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:


(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

Chapter 30 deals with BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS. All of the definitions in 30.01 pertain to the rules in that chapter. The rule we are dealing with, 46.03a4 which is contained in Chapter 40. And Chapter 40 has no definition of "building" among all of its specific definitions for that chapter. And Penal Code 1.07 global definitions contain no such definition.

So we still do not have a good definition for " building" specifically for Chapter 40.

Now, under the canons of statutory interpretation, without a legal definition the court would defer to the common meaning and usage of a word or term. And it's not uncommon in those situations that the court would, absent specific chapter or sectional definitions, turn to definitions used in other chapters and sections, especially when the interpretation does no violence to reasonable meaning.

The 30.05 use of "reasonably likely to come to the attention of...." phrase to define what "conspicuous" means in 30.06 and 30.07 is a good example of where a court might turn to define "conspicuous".

So, let's assume that the "building" spoken of in the 46.03 definition of "premises" does mean "... any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use..." then one could conclude that sitting in the stands at a racetrack is permissible since they are not "enclosed intended for [yada, yada, yada]...".

And thus we have the answer to the OP.

Or do we.

tex

bigtek wrote:A building is enclosed by walls and a roof.

Excellent! Now I'm sure you can provide your source for that legal definition.

Please do so, if you will.

tex

It's more refined than that.

The "premises"....read, building or portion of a building, of a racetrack is what is off limits.

The real question should be...what is included in the "premises" of a racetrack? Even more importantly...what is meant by the word "building"?

I take that to mean....this is my interpretation only....any constructed "building"; the stands are technically a building...a manmade construction...if you accept my definition. We are used to a "building" being an enclosed structure. There may be more to it than that.

We need a good definition for building.

tex