Sugar Land Public Library

[ScottDLS]

Aha, now a Library School to add to the Zoo Schools, Museum Schools, Amusement Park Schools, and TABC Licensee Schools. My car is a place of learning for my 15 year old with Learner Permit, so I am committing a felony every time I carry in my car.

Carry concealed and you should not have any issues.

Does that also mean that a LEO (without a LTC) violates the GFSZA every time he drives within 1,000 feet of a vehicle that has someone with a learner's permit inside?

Unless he is acting "on official business", YES.

[locke_n_load]

I visited a library in Sugar Land today that was posted as a "no guns" premises, specifically under 46.03, and more specifically it noted 46.035.

I've read through that language, but cannot figure out how that can keep one from carrying there, especially as a publicly owned premises.

Can anyone 'splain this better to me?

Thank you.

Yes, I can.

You seem to indicate that you do not understand your specified right to carry your weapon and that you do not understand the rules authorizing your to carry your weapon and those rules that prevent you from carrying your weapon. You also seem to indicate that you do not understand the rules governing a governmental entity's right or lack thereof of prohibiting you from exercising your right to, with a license, carry your weapon.

The rules are black and white...with a razor's edge. Either you can or you can not.

First there is no such thing as a "No Guns" sign designating a location as weapons-free. The language "no guns" means nothing. It has no legal force. Stating that a location is "no guns" means nothing. It has no legal force. As is clearly indicated in the statute 46.03, libraries owned by a city (and I'm assuming this is a city or municipal governmentally owned library) are not listed. Neither does 46.035 prevent carriage in a governmentally owned library.

Simply putting up a sign that says that no guns are allowed under 46.03 and 46.035 does not, in and of itself, mean it's true. It may be or it may not be. In this case (assuming a governmentally owned library) we know it to not be true. And, since the location is not among the "Big 13" statutorily prohibited areas, then, by default, it falls under 30.06 and 30.07. And, in that case, there must be proper 30.06 and/or 30.07 notification.

And if there is none, then there is nothing but discretion stopping you from exercising your right to carry.

I might walk right in and advise anyone telling me different that no only can I carry in the (governmentally owned) library but they, are, in fact, statutorily PROHIBITED from prohibiting me from carrying.

I suggest a thorough review and study of the rules. It will come in handy.

tex

Is it firmly established...in black and white, with a razor's edge, that the Sugarland Library is NOT a "school or educational institution" as referenced in 46.03?

How about the Houston Zoo? Also, what about the Fort Worth Science Museum. All have declared themselves to be schools and the AG has refused to find the zoo or museum in violation of 411.209.

Does OP want to be the "test case"?

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
Text of subsection effective until Aug. 1, 2016
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution
...

I think "thetexan" just volunteered to be the test case. Finally!

[EastTexasRancher]

I just need to say this to say it:

Yep, I supposed I could have read the law word for word, then consulted counsel for a legal interpretation, which could or could not have been read the same way by a deciding judge/jury if it came to that....God forbid.

My post was more of the rhetorical variety. Yes, I'd read the law, but wanted discussion amongst those of us interested in such matters, as how a library might use the language to post what should otherwise, in my humble opinion, be a non-post-able property.

So, "thetexan", I'll submit that I'm probably not nearly as wise or as versed as you in the law. Many of us probably aren't. That's why we come here to talk about it.

I simply don't want to be a test case. I've got better things to spend my money on.

Peace. Out.

[Soccerdad1995]

I just need to say this to say it:

Yep, I supposed I could have read the law word for word, then consulted counsel for a legal interpretation, which could or could not have been read the same way by a deciding judge/jury if it came to that....God forbid.

My post was more of the rhetorical variety. Yes, I'd read the law, but wanted discussion amongst those of us interested in such matters, as how a library might use the language to post what should otherwise, in my humble opinion, be a non-post-able property.

So, "thetexan", I'll submit that I'm probably not nearly as wise or as versed as you in the law. Many of us probably aren't. That's why we come here to talk about it.

I simply don't want to be a test case. I've got better things to spend my money on.

Peace. Out.

And I'll just say that if you are worried about being arrested for something that is clearly not illegal, then you should never leave your house (and even that will give you no guarantees). There is simply no way that you can guarantee you won't ever be arrested for having committed no crime.

Personally I don't go out of my way to intentionally aggravate others, just because I legally can do something. But when it comes to discussions on this site of "being a test case" and "taking a ride" there are a lot of people who let fear limit their rights far more than they should, IMHO.

[EastTexasRancher]

No, I don't walk around afraid of arrest.

What am doing is failing at getting my thoughts articulated.

I'll go back under my rock, LOL.

[ScottDLS]

No, I don't walk around afraid of arrest.

What am doing is failing at getting my thoughts articulated.

I'll go back under my rock, LOL.

You ask a reasonable question. Sugar Land Public Library is claiming they are a school and therefore that handgun carry there by LTC is a felony. They're wrong, but nobody on here has "proved it" yet. If you are really confident in your interpretation of the law, you can walk into the Library open carrying and wait until they throw you out or call the police. What if they get some wacky Fort Bend County DA to press the charge and maybe even get you indicted. I'm 99.9% sure you'll win, eventually. My preferred method of dealing with this would be to CC and go about my business.

[locke_n_load]

No, I don't walk around afraid of arrest.

What am doing is failing at getting my thoughts articulated.

I'll go back under my rock, LOL.

You ask a reasonable question. Sugar Land Public Library is claiming they are a school and therefore that handgun carry there by LTC is a felony. They're wrong, but nobody on here has "proved it" yet. If you are really confident in your interpretation of the law, you can walk into the Library open carrying and wait until they throw you out or call the police. What if they get some wacky Fort Bend County DA to press the charge and maybe even get you indicted. I'm 99.9% sure you'll win, eventually. My preferred method of dealing with this would be to CC and go about my business.

It's nice that bills authorizing 1% of the LTC instructors out there to be able to make an online class get passed, but we can't pass a bill that properly defines a school...

[thetexan]

I just need to say this to say it:

Yep, I supposed I could have read the law word for word, then consulted counsel for a legal interpretation, which could or could not have been read the same way by a deciding judge/jury if it came to that....God forbid.

My post was more of the rhetorical variety. Yes, I'd read the law, but wanted discussion amongst those of us interested in such matters, as how a library might use the language to post what should otherwise, in my humble opinion, be a non-post-able property.

So, "thetexan", I'll submit that I'm probably not nearly as wise or as versed as you in the law. Many of us probably aren't. That's why we come here to talk about it.

I simply don't want to be a test case. I've got better things to spend my money on.

Peace. Out.

I certainly did not mean to come across as criticizing your study of the statutes. I can see how that would come across that way and I apologize if it did. I did not see anything in the original post indicating that the library was claiming any educational institutional status as their justification for the prohibition. My point I meant to make was that the statutes at play here are so razor sharp clear that the application in this case seemed cut and dry.

If I saw a sign that simply stated that guns are prohibited under 46.03 or 46.035 on the front door of a public library I would walk right in for two reasons. One, its owned by a government entity (assuming it is in actuality and only a library) and two, it is not an educational institution by definition (assuming it's just a library). The sign they might SHOULD post is one that states something like this..."this library is a school" or..."this library is an institution of higher learning" or..."this library is a technical school" or something similar. Then we would all know what to do. Otherwise we are left to guess why they claim authority under 40.03/.035! If a donut shop were to post the same sign outside would anyone hesitate to walk in? The only item common to both statutes is that dealing with educational institutions so I guess they assume will will assume.

No, I don't want to be the test case either. I would leave the gun in the car, go inside and ask for an explanation, and after determining that the library's claim is invalid (assuming it is) I would file a complaint to the State AG's office.

Again, my apologies.

tex

PS. Another point I just thought of. We homeschooled. If I do not want someone to come on my property and I choose to use signage to notify someone that guns are not allowed on my property do I post a 30.06/.07 sign, or do I simply put up a sign that says "guns are not allowed as per 46.03/46.035 (as a private school) and in the later case just assume everyone will understand the prohibition. I, as a LTC carrier coming on the property, could reasonably assume in the later case that I have not been properly notified under 30.06/.07.

PPS. Which brings up another point. Must homeschoolers not have guns in their homes? I'm not sure I want the answer to that question so I'll leave that for later.

[ScottDLS]

Ha ha....my car is a Driving School for my 15 year old daughter. Get within 1000' feet of me carrying a long gun and you are committing a federal felony!

[RossA]

I visited a library in Sugar Land today that was posted as a "no guns" premises, specifically under 46.03, and more specifically it noted 46.035.

I've read through that language, but cannot figure out how that can keep one from carrying there, especially as a publicly owned premises.

Can anyone 'splain this better to me?

Thank you.

Yes, I can.

You seem to indicate that you do not understand your specified right to carry your weapon and that you do not understand the rules authorizing your to carry your weapon and those rules that prevent you from carrying your weapon. You also seem to indicate that you do not understand the rules governing a governmental entity's right or lack thereof of prohibiting you from exercising your right to, with a license, carry your weapon.

The rules are black and white...with a razor's edge. Either you can or you can not.

First there is no such thing as a "No Guns" sign designating a location as weapons-free. The language "no guns" means nothing. It has no legal force. Stating that a location is "no guns" means nothing. It has no legal force. As is clearly indicated in the statute 46.03, libraries owned by a city (and I'm assuming this is a city or municipal governmentally owned library) are not listed. Neither does 46.035 prevent carriage in a governmentally owned library.

Simply putting up a sign that says that no guns are allowed under 46.03 and 46.035 does not, in and of itself, mean it's true. It may be or it may not be. In this case (assuming a governmentally owned library) we know it to not be true. And, since the location is not among the "Big 13" statutorily prohibited areas, then, by default, it falls under 30.06 and 30.07. And, in that case, there must be proper 30.06 and/or 30.07 notification.

And if there is none, then there is nothing but discretion stopping you from exercising your right to carry.

I might walk right in and advise anyone telling me different that no only can I carry in the (governmentally owned) library but they, are, in fact, statutorily PROHIBITED from prohibiting me from carrying.

I suggest a thorough review and study of the rules. It will come in handy.

tex

It is also firmly established that not all of the Waller County courthouse is a "court or offices used by a court". That didn't stop Waller County officials and an activist judge from declaring just the opposite.

[EastTexasRancher]

All good gentlemen!!!

No harm, no foul!!!

[locke_n_load]

I just need to say this to say it:

Yep, I supposed I could have read the law word for word, then consulted counsel for a legal interpretation, which could or could not have been read the same way by a deciding judge/jury if it came to that....God forbid.

My post was more of the rhetorical variety. Yes, I'd read the law, but wanted discussion amongst those of us interested in such matters, as how a library might use the language to post what should otherwise, in my humble opinion, be a non-post-able property.

So, "thetexan", I'll submit that I'm probably not nearly as wise or as versed as you in the law. Many of us probably aren't. That's why we come here to talk about it.

I simply don't want to be a test case. I've got better things to spend my money on.

Peace. Out.

My point I meant to make was that the statutes at play here are so razor sharp clear that the application in this case seemed cut and dry.

If I saw a sign that simply stated that guns are prohibited under 46.03 or 46.035 on the front door of a public library I would walk right in for two reasons. One, its owned by a government entity (assuming it is in actuality and only a library) and two, it is not an educational institution by definition (assuming it's just a library).

No, I don't want to be the test case either. I would leave the gun in the car, go inside and ask for an explanation, and after determining that the library's claim is invalid (assuming it is) I would file a complaint to the State AG's office.

Again, my apologies.

tex

The problem with saying "the statutes are so razor sharp clear" and "is not an education institution by definition" is that there is no definition for educational institution, making it not razor sharp clear. Yes I agree that I don't believe that it is, but a DA might not see it that way. And that is not just a misdemeanor if you were convicted. I really wish the clarification bill this session would have passed.