Another shooting in South east Houston Building

[philip964]

I've been to that building or one just like it near by. It is a scary group of office buildings. I would definitely carry every day to work.

[ELB]

Updates since I last read the story:

In the video, the man goes next door to another business and is confronted by the owner, who police said pulled out a gun. A single gunshot is heard.

That's new info, and it changes things a bit. Yesterday it sounded like the guy broke into the government office, and somebody from next door came in and shot him.

The Office of District Attorney has been consulted and announced Wednesday evening the case has been transferred to the Harris County Grand Jury. No charges have been filed against the shooter.

If that's accurate, it sounds to me like the DA thinks it is a legal shoot, and wants the cover of the GJ's agreement. Granted, and happily, I do not have much interaction with DAs and GJs, but seems to me if the DA thought the business owner done wrong, he would have taken longer to prepare for the GJ and told them what law charges he thought appropriate.

By the way, there is video of the event at a link in the story. It picks up where the glass to the government office is already broken, the man has his leg through the broken glass, and he is shouting at someone inside, leaning on the door, pounding on it with his hand. The door next to the left opens and a guy in a plaid shirt can be seen standing in the doorway. Mr. Shouty walks to that doorway and plaid shirt backs up and starts to close the door. Shouty pushes the door back open and walks in shouting. You can hear him shouting over and over, and just see his back -- he jerk his upper body forward every time he shouts, and edges forward just a bit. Then there is a shot and the video stops.

I can't tell what he is shouting when he is in the office next door, but it could be "Shoot me! Shoot Me!" Could just as easily be something else tho.

[Bryanmc]

If that's accurate, it sounds to me like the DA thinks it is a legal shoot, and wants the cover of the GJ's agreement.

I read somewhere that all homicides in Texas are referred to the Grand Jury. I don't know if that is accurate or not though.

[ELB]

If that's accurate, it sounds to me like the DA thinks it is a legal shoot, and wants the cover of the GJ's agreement.

I read somewhere that all homicides in Texas are referred to the Grand Jury. I don't know if that is accurate or not though.

I've heard that too -- but what I'm thinking is if the DA felt this was an unjustified shoot, he would have presented charges to the GJ as well. Speculation on my part, been wrong before.

[Soccerdad1995]

When I read the part about the business owner being LTC my first thought was it made no difference since he was inside his business. My interpretation is that he could put a handgun in a brief case or bag to enter the building and office and have it at the ready as long as it wasn't on his person if the building was posted 30.06. . Of course if it is not posted he could carry concealed. Am I off base in that assumption?

30.06 makes no distinction between on-body and off-body carry.

If the building is posted both 30.06 and 30.07 and a business owner leases a suite within that building, then the suite would be property under the lessee's control and as such they could carry legally within that suite, I believe. This might well violate the terms of their lease, but I am only talking about legality here, not civil contract law.

While the business owner may not be able to legally carry the firearm through the building lobby to get to get to their suite, they could definitely transport the firearm from their car to their leased suite. Having the weapon off body in a case would be transporting the firearm, not carrying per 30.06 or 30.07.

Same concept as you renting a hotel room where the hotel is posted 30.06 and 30.07.

[Pariah3j]

When I read the part about the business owner being LTC my first thought was it made no difference since he was inside his business. My interpretation is that he could put a handgun in a brief case or bag to enter the building and office and have it at the ready as long as it wasn't on his person if the building was posted 30.06. . Of course if it is not posted he could carry concealed. Am I off base in that assumption?

30.06 makes no distinction between on-body and off-body carry.

If the building is posted both 30.06 and 30.07 and a business owner leases a suite within that building, then the suite would be property under the lessee's control and as such they could carry legally within that suite, I believe. This might well violate the terms of their lease, but I am only talking about legality here, not civil contract law.

While the business owner may not be able to legally carry the firearm through the building lobby to get to get to their suite, they could definitely transport the firearm from their car to their leased suite. Having the weapon off body in a case would be transporting the firearm, not carrying per 30.06 or 30.07.

Same concept as you renting a hotel room where the hotel is posted 30.06 and 30.07.

I believe you are allowed to carry or transport past the posted sign because you can legally carry in both locations and you would have to carry past the sign in order to get to the area in which you control. How you transport or carry would not matter from what I understand. 30.06/LTC law doesn't distinguish how you carry, whether its in a bag, carried in a holster or even if its on your person. But as always, IANAL so I may be wrong.

[CleverNickname]

Having the weapon off body in a case would be transporting the firearm, not carrying per 30.06 or 30.07.

If someone is legal to possess a firearm in a certain location (whether an LTC or not, whether on their own property or on someone else's), please show me an situation where the legal requirement is to keep it off-body and not on their person. I don't think a situation like that exists.