Scenario time

[pt145ss]

Now, chimps are a different matter. They're smaller than an an adult human being, agile, and strong enough to tear off your arm and beat you to death with it.

- Jim

Does that mean I can carry a trained chimp...and not a pistol...that would end any issues with 30.06 and 46.03.

[Mike1951]

Sure! Remember these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8avOiTUcD4Y

[dukalmighty]

Sorry the zoo is open to the public,just because a school decides to have a field day there does not make me part of their event,if they have rented or are having an event on property for the sole purpose of that event such as a sports game or school play etc. then that is a school sponsored event.By the way i don't believe we can carry in amusement parks whether theres a hoard of shool buses or not,your gun might fall out on the super duper screaming upside down roller coaster from heck,i lost a hat once

[shootthesheet]

CHL holders are only restricted if the school has total control over the zoo. So, if the entire zoo is used as a school activity then we cannot enter. With this, we should have notice by the fact the people selling tickets won't let us in.

This is no different than if a schools sports team stops at the local "stop and rob" for after activity snacks. They do not control the building and we are in no wrong by shopping there at the same time.

The main point, in my limited understanding, is that the building or "fenced" area must be totally controlled by the school. Malls, Wal Marts, zoos, should not affect our ability to carry. That said, there are exceptions to where they post signs and that must be worked out by the legislature I guess.

I don't think I ever saw anything saying that the school sponsored had to be in complete control of the grounds or premises. I would look at it in the sense of knowing (or had reason to know) that a school sponsored event was going on at the place in question. I think “totally controlled� is not a well defined term. For example, My child has a school sponsored event like a lock down at Austin Park and Pizza…yes they are the only ones there at the park but are they in control of the park? I would think not. I would think that Austin Park and Pizza's employees are in control…no one else. So here is the scenario: I go to pick my child up from the lock down and I go inside…If I carry, am I in violation? I would think so…not because the school event has control of the facility but because I knew or had reason to know that a school sponsored event was taking place.

Another scenario: I take my family to the Bob bullock museum. I carry because I have no indication that I should not carry. Half way through the museum I see a bunch of kids walking in a group…it could be a school event…but then again…it might not be. Am I in violation? I would think not because I have no way of knowing if the kids I saw were a part of a school sponsored event or not.

To answer the OPs question…I most likely would carry as I have now way of knowing (nor had any reason to know) that there was a school sponsored event at the zoo.

It has to do with if the school has rented the building or it was open only to that event for that time. This was discussed in detail but I cannot remember if it was this site. I would not imagine anyone would get into any real trouble unless the event was held on school grounds anyway. And as I posted, if the zoo or whatever is in the control of the school then it is closed to the general public and we could not get in anyway, at least shouldn't be able to for the security of the children unless we are a parent or such. Most schools post people at all entrances/exits to ensure kids cannot get out unattended and the general public can't get in. That is the notification that would put all doubt aside that a CHL holder parent should not carry there. If no person is there or no signs of the event are there then I agree that a CHL holder has a real defense of not having any idea of the area being closed off to the public. I will carry anyplace that does not have immediate notification of the event. I keep my weapon concealed and the only risk is if I had to pull that weapon. That is my opinion.

[bpet]

Now, chimps are a different matter. They're smaller than an an adult human being, agile, and strong enough to tear off your arm and beat you to death with it.

- Jim

I rest my case. Those zoos are mighty dangerous places and I will be carrying. I'll just avoid the chimp exhibit though. Just as soon keep both arms.

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

by pt145ss on Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:50 pm

seamusTX wrote:
Now, chimps are a different matter. They're smaller than an an adult human being, agile, and strong enough to tear off your arm and beat you to death with it.

- Jim


Does that mean I can carry a trained chimp...and not a pistol...that would end any issues with 30.06 and 46.03.

You still have to conceal your chimp! Mine is trained to hide in the bottom storage basket on the stroller with a blanket over him until the time is right. He's trained to only come out when he hears the code word, "Curious George". Darn, now I'll have to change our code word!

[srothstein]

In another thread on this topic, Charles posted a very good explanation of why he thinks the "grounds where a school activity" clause does not apply to things like this. He thinks it was in there to cover school grounds only when a school activity is taking place out of the building.

In the same thread, I disagreed and said I think it does apply in cases like this. But, IANAL and he is. Neither of us is the judge who will hear your case though.

I think the law was meant to apply to cases like this, except for the requirement that it be knowing, reckless, or intentional. I figured the law was meant more to stop people who are associated with the school activity in some way (parents, faculty, etc.) and not an innocent customer of the main business.

I would have carried in there in your place, but I tend to interpret the law to best suit me when I am given a chance - until a court rules otherwise.

[KBCraig]

GET RID OF 30.06! GET RID OF IT!

Private property owners should always have the right to admit, or deny admittance, to whomever they wish.

The better solution here is not eliminating 30.06, but reducing the penalty for "criminal trespass while in possession of a deadly weapon". It's currently a Class A misdemeanor; make the penalty for violating a 30.06 notice the same as violating a "no shirt, no service" sign, and all is well.

If you ask me it's Unconstitutional discrimination, pure and simple. If I can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed," and you can't put up a sign that says "No Jews Allowed," then no one should be able to put up a sign that says, in effect, "No CHLs Allowed."

In a world that valued liberty, freedom, and property rights, any property owner would be free to post any of those signs. They would be despicable scum who should be shunned and ostracized, but if they are able to succeed in business with such policies, then the free market works.

No place that is open to the public should be able to keep CHLs out of their establishment. There should be only one place in the whole state that prohibits lawfully carried firearms, and that is a bar.

So now, all of a sudden, you want the state to ban guns on private property, after arguing that that private property owners shouldn't be able to do the same?

Sorry. Take a big dose of the Constitution, and call me in the morning. The state should never ban guns on private property, whether it's Joe's Bar, or Baylor U.

[bdickens]

Private property owners should always have the right to admit, or deny admittance, to whomever they wish.

I was wondering when this hogwash about absolute property rights was going to come up.

It's already been decided in the courts and by the 1964 Civil Rights act that businesses do not have the right to deny access to whomever they wish. Private property they may be, but we have already decided in this country that by being open to the public, they are required to serve everyone. That's the fact and that's the law. You can't exclude an entire class of citizens from your establishment. Posting a sign that says "NO CHL's" (which is what a 30.06 sign is) is the same as posting a sign that says "No Baptists."

But you're right, CHL's should be allowed to carry in bars, too. Why not. Carrying while you're legally intoxicated should be prohibited. Why should you not be able to carry in the courthouse, or in Spec's, or in a school? What are you going to do there that you wouldn't do somewhere else? Nothing.

[barres]

The title says it all. I agreed with most everyone who has responded. The buses were parked on a public street near the zoo, not in the zoo parking lot. I thought there was a good possibility that there were school kids on a field trip in the zoo, but I did not know for sure. I had previously researched who owned the property on which the zoo is located (City of Houston), so I knew before I left home that, even if there were 30.06 signs, they would not be enforceable (sorry, Frankie, but I agree with Charles on this issue), even though a private company manages the zoo. With that info, I neglected to bring any way of securing my pistols in my vehicle. That was the icing on the cake: I carried.

Nothing happened. I did not need my CCW, but I was comforted in knowing it was there should the need arise. I avoided the groups of children in their school shirts once I found them in the zoo. Not because I think it would have made any difference in the legality of carrying, but squirming through a crowd whose shoulders are at my waist level increases the chance of someone bumping something hard on my belt and I didn't want to take any chances of being discovered.

Thank you all for your input. I feel better that I made the best decision I could given the circumstances.

[pt145ss]

I was wondering when this hogwash about absolute property rights was going to come up.

It's already been decided in the courts and by the 1964 Civil Rights act that businesses do not have the right to deny access to whomever they wish. Private property they may be, but we have already decided in this country that by being open to the public, they are required to serve everyone. That's the fact and that's the law. You can't exclude an entire class of citizens from your establishment. Posting a sign that says "NO CHL's" (which is what a 30.06 sign is) is the same as posting a sign that says "No Baptists."

But you're right, CHL's should be allowed to carry in bars, too. Why not. Carrying while you're legally intoxicated should be prohibited. Why should you not be able to carry in the courthouse, or in Spec's, or in a school? What are you going to do there that you wouldn't do somewhere else? Nothing.

Posting a sign that says “No Baptist� is discriminating against a protected class. I do not think having a CHL puts one in a “protected� class of citizenry. Business owners can refuse service to anyone as long as their refusal is not based on a protected class. For example, a restaurant can refuse service to someone who is not wearing a sport coat, as not wearing a sport coat is not protected class. However, that same business can not refuse service because a customer is over 65 because that is a protected class of citizenry.

[bdickens]

I didn't realize there were certian special, protected classes of citizens. I thought that everyone was equal under the law.


As an aside, this discussion is getting far off topic, but I think is interesting enough to warrant it's own thread. Maybe the moderators can move the appropriate posts?

[thejtrain]

It's already been decided in the courts and by the 1964 Civil Rights act that businesses do not have the right to deny access to whomever they wish. Private property they may be, but we have already decided in this country that by being open to the public, they are required to serve everyone. That's the fact and that's the law. You can't exclude an entire class of citizens from your establishment. Posting a sign that says "NO CHL's" (which is what a 30.06 sign is) is the same as posting a sign that says "No Baptists."

Posting a sign that says “No Baptist� is discriminating against a protected class. I do not think having a CHL puts one in a “protected� class of citizenry. Business owners can refuse service to anyone as long as their refusal is not based on a protected class. For example, a restaurant can refuse service to someone who is not wearing a sport coat, as not wearing a sport coat is not protected class. However, that same business can not refuse service because a customer is over 65 because that is a protected class of citizenry.

I was wondering about that myself, and glad pt145ss posted, because reading bdickens' post I was left wondering, "What about those 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' signs that I've seen before, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act?" To me, the whole "protected class" thing is a bit confusing and borders on discrimination by government edict (affirmative action, anyone?). Can someone give us a list of the "protected classes" that are included in "those you can't discriminate against"? Is it the whole "on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability, etc." thing?

From a normative "this is what I think the law should be" perspective (distinct from a descriptive "this is what I think the law is" perspective) I tend to fall on KBCraig's side of the matter (and I note that KBCraig's verbiage was laying out a normative "should be" view, not a descriptive "is" view, contrary to the apparent interpretation that informed bdickens' "hogwash" comment - no offense meant, bdickens, just seemed like we had different reads of what KBCraig meant). If I were a business owner I should be able to decide for myself if I want to sell a hamburger to everyone who wants one or only to those fitting a certain description. If my policies negatively affect my revenue, that's my problem and none of the .gov's business. I agree with KBCraig that it would be a foolish policy to have (and one worthy of ostracism by the public), but it shouldn't be the .gov's place to save my balance sheet from my own stupidity.

JT

EDIT:

As an aside, this discussion is getting far off topic, but I think is interesting enough to warrant it's own thread. Maybe the moderators can move the appropriate posts?

Fully agreed on the opinion and the suggestion!

[pt145ss]

I think...Federally protected classes are: race, color, sex, disability, religion, national origin, age (if over 40).

I'm not sure about sexual orientation but it may be one as well.