Carrying in City Council Meeting

extremist · Post by **extremist** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:25 pm

I never could get the DPS lawyers to answer me specifically on this, and I'll admit, to me it's still a grey area. City has taken down it's 30.06 signs in response to SB501 from 2002 session, but I'm still not 100% sure it's okay to carry at a city council meeting.

It's not a court
There's not court going on in the building

So, does SB501 exempt me from being prohibited from carrying?

What do you fellow instructors think and what do you teach?

Regards,
James

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 9:54 pm

(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

(c) 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, at any meeting of a governmental
entity.

(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.

ElGato · Post by **ElGato** » Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:11 pm

I was trying to get on to answer but he's too fast for me.

I don't understand why you couldn't get an answer from the DPS?

By the way if they were to post the meeting ,I think it should only be the room where the meeting is being held, not the whole building.

Tomcat

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:09 am

(c) 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, at any meeting of a governmental
entity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kinda makes you wonder what they are afraid of???

Do they know something we don't???:roll:

How could I ever "recklessly" carry a handgun???

And they label us as paranoid...

extremist · Post by **extremist** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:46 pm

The building is not posted, neither is the room.

So, I guess the answer is no problem. Even if they did post 30.06, due to SB501, it is not applicable, since it is clearly a government owned or leased building.

Okay, I'm satisfied.

James

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:18 pm

extremist wrote:The building is not posted, neither is the room.

So, I guess the answer is no problem. Even if they did post 30.06, due to SB501, it is not applicable, since it is clearly a government owned or leased building.

Okay, I'm satisfied.

James

Be careful. 30.06 signs can be posted on government owned property to prevent entry into a meeting of a governmental entity. Here is the language from TPC 30.06:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Meetings of governmental entities are prohibited locations per TPC 46.035(c), as set out below.

(c) 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, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.

Regards,
Chas.

extremist · Post by **extremist** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:31 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
extremist wrote:The building is not posted, neither is the room.

So, I guess the answer is no problem. Even if they did post 30.06, due to SB501, it is not applicable, since it is clearly a government owned or leased building.

Okay, I'm satisfied.

James
Be careful. 30.06 signs can be posted on government owned property to prevent entry into a meeting of a governmental entity. Here is the language from TPC 30.06:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Meetings of governmental entities are prohibited locations per TPC 46.035(c), as set out below.

(c) 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, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.

Regards,
Chas.

Ya butt,
I thought subsection (c) of 46.035 only applied if there was a 30.06 sign posted? See, confusion abounds.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:49 pm

extremist wrote:Ya butt,
I thought subsection (c) of 46.035 only applied if there was a 30.06 sign posted? See, confusion abounds.

You're absolutely correct; a 30.06 sign must be posted (or you must be given verbal notice) for the meeting to be off-limits. The only governmental owned property that can be posted with a 30.06 sign are locations made off-limits by 46.03 and 46.035, including government meetings.

So. the general rule is government owned property can't be properly posted with 30.06 signs. Exceptions are those locations found in 46.03 and 46.035.

I hope this helps,
Chas.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:48 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:(

How could I ever "recklessly" carry a handgun???

Texas Penal Code 6.03

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to
circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct
when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will
occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that
an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as
viewed from the actor's standpoint.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:20 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:(

How could I ever "recklessly" carry a handgun???
Texas Penal Code 6.03

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to
circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct
when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will
occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that
an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as
viewed from the actor's standpoint.

It almost looks like you made this one up!!!

Maybe you did...

I'm sorry it just kinda looks that way...You got me this time...

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:17 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:(

How could I ever "recklessly" carry a handgun???
Texas Penal Code 6.03

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to
circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct
when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will
occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that
an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as
viewed from the actor's standpoint.
It almost looks like you made this one up!!! Maybe you did...

I'm sorry it just kinda looks that way...You got me this time...

Nahhh, you can't make stuff like that up. Here's the link to Baker's Legal Pages, a handy resource.

http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/0603.htm

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:06 am

I dunno...I guess I have this thing about the word "reckless"...

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:23 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:I dunno...I guess I have this thing about the word "reckless"...

The Legislature had to have a third mens rea (required mental state), since the first two (intentionally and knowingly) can very often be difficult to prove. You can look at the "recklessly" mens rea as a "should have known" concept on steroids!

Chas.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:42 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:I dunno...I guess I have this thing about the word "reckless"...
The Legislature had to have a third mens rea (required mental state), since the first two (intentionally and knowingly) can very often be difficult to prove. You can look at the "recklessly" mens rea as a "should have known" concept on steroids!

Chas.

Correct...

If I were to get into "trouble" for carrying somewhere where "I should have known better".

This makes it easy for them, because during an investigation, they will find out if I am a participant in forums like this, and use my comments to prove how militant I am about carrying a "gun" anywhere I damn well please...

Even though I know already where I can an cannot go with a firearm...

Dad-gum lawyers! Alway twisting things around!!!