SB 321 Parking lot bill.

[austin-tatious]

So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract? Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? ....

Your list makes me wonder what a professional steer wrestler could do to a smallish 6-point buck ..... then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

My "dear" would certainly put some hurt on me if I tried to rope her.

[A-R]

So? If the owner wanted to prevent the drilling companies personnel from hunting, why didn't they just put a "No Hunting" clause in the contract? Wouldn't the "No Guns" clause open the land up to hunting with a bow? Trapping? Snares? Spears? Knife Throwing? ....

Your list makes me wonder what a professional steer wrestler could do to a smallish 6-point buck ..... then I remember that great story about the guy who tried to rope the dear and ....

My "dear" would certainly put some hurt on me if I tried to rope her.

ha ha -- nice catch ... big differences amongst Dear John, John Deere, John's deer

[A-R]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

Chas.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and . . .

Steve & Chas:

I truly like your thought process on this, one thing I find odd:

The actual wording of the statute is as Chas has copied it above - importantly for my point offense is committed IF you carry under authority of CHL, which you've both stated you believe is not the case now with MPA as long as gun stays in car.

But the wording of the PC 30.06 sign itself is different, stating clearly that anyone licensed may not enter property with concealed handgun. This is different than carrying under the authority of the license.

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun

Obviously I would think the wording of the PC 30.06 statute is controlling and not the wording of the 30.06 sign - but I'm curious why the basic meanings of each are different?

Secondly, I think THIS SIGN - an actual sign on a parking garage in Round Rock - could prohibit all possession of all handguns (or at least all revolvers ) under any authority short of law enforcement authority (which trumps all). Earlier thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33608&hilit=parking ... rage+30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

The sign itself is not the law, it's only required by the law. The wording of the sign must be correct to trigger the provisions of TPC §30.06, but once triggered, all elements of the offense must be present in order to prosecute someone. One of the required elements is that the defendant is carrying pursuant to the authority of their CHL. Since a CHL is not required to legally have a handgun in your car, you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL.

I explain it like this to my CHL students. When trying to determine when you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL, ask yourself this question, "would I be breaking the law by standing/sitting here with a pistol without a CHL?" If the answer is "no," then you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL.

Chas.

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

Chas.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and . . .

Steve & Chas:

I truly like your thought process on this, one thing I find odd:

The actual wording of the statute is as Chas has copied it above - importantly for my point offense is committed IF you carry under authority of CHL, which you've both stated you believe is not the case now with MPA as long as gun stays in car.

But the wording of the PC 30.06 sign itself is different, stating clearly that anyone licensed may not enter property with concealed handgun. This is different than carrying under the authority of the license.

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun

Obviously I would think the wording of the PC 30.06 statute is controlling and not the wording of the 30.06 sign - but I'm curious why the basic meanings of each are different?

Secondly, I think THIS SIGN - an actual sign on a parking garage in Round Rock - could prohibit all possession of all handguns (or at least all revolvers ) under any authority short of law enforcement authority (which trumps all). Earlier thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33608&hilit=parking ... rage+30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[terryg]

I explain it like this to my CHL students. When trying to determine when you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL, ask yourself this question, "would I be breaking the law by standing/sitting here with a pistol without a CHL?" If the answer is "no," then you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL.

Chas.

Please forgive my ignorance and (hopefully brief) off topic tangent:

How does this balance with the requirement to show a CHL at a traffic stop? At face value, wouldn't this mean that I would not be required to show my CHL at a traffic stop because, when in my car, I am carrying under MPA?

[Purplehood]

I explain it like this to my CHL students. When trying to determine when you are carrying pursuant to the authority of your CHL, ask yourself this question, "would I be breaking the law by standing/sitting here with a pistol without a CHL?" If the answer is "no," then you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL.

Chas.

Please forgive my ignorance and (hopefully brief) off topic tangent:

How does this balance with the requirement to show a CHL at a traffic stop? At face value, wouldn't this mean that I would not be required to show my CHL at a traffic stop because, when in my car, I am carrying under MPA?

My laymans answer is that the weapon is within your reach, and could arguably be considered carrying of a concealed weapon.

[TexDotCom]

...the weapon is within your reach, and could arguably be considered carrying of a concealed weapon.

But...wouldn't that also be the case if you're carrying under the MPA and don't have a CHL? I think that's what terryg was alluding to with the question asked after Charles' comment about how to tell when you are and are not carrying under your CHL. If, as Charles says, the answer to your question would be "no, I would not be breaking the law by standing/sitting here with a pistol without a CHL" then, again as Charles says, "you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL." The answer would be "no" because of the MPA. So why would we have to show a CHL when those without CHLs, who are also carrying pursuant to the MPA like we are (at that point), would not have to?

I *think* that's what terryg was getting at.

[Purplehood]

...the weapon is within your reach, and could arguably be considered carrying of a concealed weapon.

But...wouldn't that also be the case if you're carrying under the MPA and don't have a CHL? I think that's what terryg was alluding to with the question asked after Charles' comment about how to tell when you are and are not carrying under your CHL. If, as Charles says, the answer to your question would be "no, I would not be breaking the law by standing/sitting here with a pistol without a CHL" then, again as Charles says, "you are not carrying pursuant to your CHL." The answer would be "no" because of the MPA. So why would we have to show a CHL when those without CHLs, who are also carrying pursuant to the MPA like we are (at that point), would not have to?

I *think* that's what terryg was getting at.

Like I said I am not a lawyer. But the argument from my point of view is that I as a CHL holder did indeed have a concealed weapon easily at hand. So in my little mind, that triggers the requirement to provide a CHL to the officer. I could be wrong, but it won't be because I did not show the CHL when stopped.

[MasterOfNone]

One subtle difference here is that PC 30.06 includes the wording:

carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code

.
But GC 411.205 (Requirement to Display License) simply states:

If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification

.
There is no differentiation in GC 411.205 about whether or not you are carrying under the authority of your CHL.

[terryg]

One subtle difference here is that PC 30.06 includes the wording:

carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code

.
But GC 411.205 (Requirement to Display License) simply states:

If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification

.
There is no differentiation in GC 411.205 about whether or not you are carrying under the authority of your CHL.

Thank you! That seems to be the key.

[tacticool]

Right. Think about this.

A peace officer in Texas can carry in a 30.06 posted premise. They can carry in schools. They can carry openly. If a peace officer gets a CHL, as some do, they can still carry in schools without breaking the law. However, if a peace officer with a CHL is asked for ID by another peace officer or by a magistrate, and they're carrying a concealed handgun, they have the same requirement to display the CHL as you or me.

Now think about this.

A company that owns and operates parking lots posts a generic NO GUNS sign at each entrance. Someone carrying a handgun under MPA would be trespassing, no different than if they had a rifle in a rifle rack prior to MPA. However, because of 30.05(f) the generic NO GUNS sign does not prohibit a CHL from entering the parking lot with a handgun. I think a CHL would be trespassing if they have a shotgun or rifle. Also, because of 30.05(i) the generic NO GUNS sign does not prohibit a LEO (with or without a CHL) from entering the parking lot with a handgun or long gun.

Now the company posts a valid 30.06 sign at each entrance, next to the generic NO GUNS sign. A private citizen with a CHL is exempt from the generic "NO GUNS" sign to carry a concealed handgun, but to get a pass on the NO GUNS sign they have to be carrying under the authority of their CHL, which then makes them subject to the 30.06 sign. A LEO (with or without a CHL) is not prohibited from entering the parking lot with a handgun or rifle, open or concealed, because they're carrying under the authority of their status as a Texas peace officer.

IANAL but AFAIK there's no case law that contradicts my layman's opinion.