Courthouses, is the whole building off limits or not?

[Right2Carry]

I have done a search and it seems this question is never answered. The reason I am bringing this up is that an article appeared in the opinion page of the Graham Leader which deals with Courthouse CHL Carry. I have a friend who lives in Graham and they have always been told that it was legal to carry in the courthouse provided you did not go into the actual courtrooms or court offices. This particular building has the Tax Office and other entities in the same building.

It appears that the Judge has decided to post the building with a no guns sign angering a few CHLer's. The following letter was written in regards to the no guns sign posting by someone in Graham. My question is this, if Courthouses are off limits and apply to the whole building, why would the judge feel the need to post the building with a no guns sign? I am not the author of the letter but I do understand it is hard to read. Below is the letter as written with a link to the original. (Edited to remove 30.06 sign)

Guest viewpoint -- Young County officials don't trust the law

It has taken me some time to decide how I felt about this matter and whether I needed to say anything about it at all. But in the final analysis, I think too many have been too quiet, too long, about a lot of things.
I read your explanation of how you thought the vote of the Young County commissioners to ban persons with licenses to carry concealed handguns from the courthouse was justifiable. I must disagree with what these elected officials have done in Young County, an area of our state I had believed, until now, to have maintained some common sense amidst our current political landscape. Since the inception of the conceal carry law, CCL, in January of 1996, the fine people of Texas have proven the fearmongers and politically correct anti-gun liberals wrong about what this law would do to our state. There has been no bloodbaths in the streets, no courthouses taken by vigilantes and no schools held hostage by legally permitted gun owners. Indeed, no one thinks much of the fact that the guy or gal next to you might have a firearm on or near their person. It hasn’t been a problem for anyone except the person who may have entertained the thought of doing harm to others, but has been deterred by the fact that someone might have the means and ability to retaliate and/or stop them with force. Besides, I believe that a free citizen has the right to defend himself and family against the evil of this world.
Your recognition of the most important aspect of this episode in the reduction of civil rights seems to have been swept away by the time you reach the end of your essay. This will not keep someone from using a gun to do harm in our courthouse. This will not keep an evil or psychotic person from doing what it is they are bent upon doing. And, this fact is where the problem lies, because if the commissioners and the judge believe that removing the legal right provided to citizens by the legislature of the State of Texas to allow our citizens to defend themselves with the same force that may confront them, then we are on a slippery slope. If we ban concealed carry permit holders with their guns in the courthouse, then why not go past the front door to the lawn of the courthouse, or to the perimeter of the square? If it will truly stop harm from befalling anyone, anywhere, why not take it to 1000 feet from the courthouse, or to the city limit signs? Maybe we should go to the county line, or into our homes and stop these gun-toting citizens from even owning a gun. We may even decide that the law is faulty and should be done away with altogether. But that thinking is wrong because it is not the legal gun owner we need to fear. What we should fear is poorly informed and scared bureaucrats who don’t trust the population that they have been charged to protect and defend. And there, I think, is the biggest insult: our commissioner’s court and district judge don’t trust the law or the people who have exercised their rights under that law.
The district judge is an appointment, owing nothing to any voter except to those that voted for the official that is charged with the appointment. This is by design so that we get the best judges on the bench. But it does leave that judge more liable for the political slant of his decisions. Judge Crawford is a fine judge and has shown himself to be capable on the bench. I would hope that his asking for this ban on legally licensed gun owners from our county judge, and in turn from our county commissioners, is not based on a feeling about gun control that is part of his political party affiliation. I feel that he is capable of resisting such pressures. I am greatly dismayed, however, when our county judge says that “for no other reason than the district judge asked” to be the basis of a decision that reverses a legislated right enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the state capitol. Also, I am taken aback when the very man who invited my wife and I to come and earn our conceal carry permits adds his vote to extend the restriction on permit holders from the courtroom, where it has always been banned, to the front doors of the courthouse. My representative to the commissioner’s court went along willingly, and I have no doubt, at the time, felt he was somehow doing someone some good. Political spin aside, the commissioners did not remove legal guns from the courtroom because the CCL has always had them restricted there. This decision simply restricted legal citizens from exercising their rights to carry a concealed gun in the remainder of the courthouse. Courtroom, courthouse — big difference. It ignores the fact that harm can certainly befall anyone outside the courthouse with more certainty than inside the courthouse. Young County has had more shooting incidents outside the courthouse than inside it and that is a fact. There must be another reason for doing what they did. It irks me to think what that reason might have been, because what I thought to be a conservative county court made a horrible liberal decision. The state of Texas had allowed the courthouse ban of CCLs in the courthouse 13 years ago when the law was passed. Many urban, more populated, counties did that very thing. These places tend to be more liberal about some of their thinking, and it was part of a compromise for passage of the law. But why here, in Young County, and why now, 13 years later? It seems to go against the character of the citizens in our county. I mean, we are Texans for gosh sake, in the very best sense of the term. It is hard for me to understand that we did this on the request of one man who was fearful that a legally armed citizen might do harm in the courthouse, even though there is no evidence that a problem exists there that is any greater than outside the courthouse. What happened to make him distrust his fellow citizens who are law abiding, letter of the law, gun-carrying regular folk? Maybe it comes with seeing some of the worst in society from the bench. This was on the backside of the Fort Hood massacre, so maybe the timing was right. Luckily, there were some righteous guns in that room that day at Ft. Hood or that crazy, evil man could have killed many more. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun when he decided to do harm to a courthouse. We can’t stop these people with laws. But, we can hurt this country with misguided restrictions on the rest of us. Maybe our court and elected officials should have asked for some input of the people that elected them before traveling this road. It is a matter that will surely weigh upon the voters come election day. That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
FromI am...

http://www.grahamleader.com/forum.asp?Story=17516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr surveyor]

In my little part of NE Texas, particularly (but not limited to) Rusk, Gregg and Smith Counties, there's only one entrance/exit into the courthouse, and it's manned by at least one officer, metal detectors, wands, etc. Everyone (except those with a "badge") goes through them. My line of work requires that I visit the county clerk's office for deed research, so compliance with each county's regulations is not optional. In my home county of Rusk County, you can get through the gate with your keys, pocket change and writing tools (yep, pointy objects), but don't even think of nail clippers. Last month I emptied my pockets and belt of all of my daily tools (Gerber belt tool, pocket folding tool with scissors instead of pliers, three blade Buck), as well as my sidearm and ammunition, but forgot about the tiny 1 inch SOG folder that was mixed in with my pocket change. Had the security guard not recognized me as a "regular", I had the feeling I was going to be wall slammed and frisked. He bagged the dangerous 1 inch SOG and gave me a return ticket. Total nuts. Now, at Gregg County Courthouse, I make sure to leave the sidearm and ammo in the truck, but never dump my pockets. I can completely fill up the tupperware bowl they have for pocket dumps, and often there's a junked out utility clip blade knife mixed in with the afore mentioned garb. The Gregg Co SG's always laugh and mumble something about "damned surveyors". Now, Smith County...last time I entered that one a few years back....they WILL slam you to the wall if they even suspect you might be armed with the 1 inch SOG. Heck, I even remember a few years ago, after the lady SG "disarmed" my field hand, she scolded him for not removing his hat when he walked into the front door of the court house. The smaller, more rural county courthouses have no such idiocy, and most likely only because they just can't justify the expense of the extra staff and equipment, and the atmosphere is much more pleasant.

As for firearms in any particular part of the building(s), whether the courtroom proper or not, I'd doubt there will be any relaxation in that rule. I don't like it, but I can live with it....grudgingly. But, the stupidity of confiscating knives at the door??????? The only thing I can say, as much as I really like and respect her, our current county judge will be retiring next year, and I know the two top contenders for her seat pretty well. I think either of them would drop the idiotic TSA type regulations in a heartbeat.

surv

[chabouk]

Whether it's the whole building or only the part actually used by the courts, the 30.06 signs are meaningless. The only time they would apply is if the quorum court was meeting.

My local courthouse is also set up with a metal detector at the front entrance. The courtrooms and court offices aren't set up where they can be isolated from the rest of the building, so I can see why they chose to do it that way. Of course, all the employees (and anyone they take in with them) go through the side entrance with no screening.

[Right2Carry]

I have done a search and it seems this question is never answered. The reason I am bringing this up is that an article appeared in the opinion page of the Graham Leader which deals with Courthouse CHL Carry. I have a friend who lives in Graham and they have always been told that it was legal to carry in the courthouse provided you did not go into the actual courtrooms or court offices. This particular building has the Tax Office and other entities in the same building.

It appears that the Judge has decided to post the building with a no guns sign angering a few CHLer's. The following letter was written in regards to the no guns sign posting by someone in Graham. My question is this, if Courthouses are off limits and apply to the whole building, why would the judge feel the need to post the building with a no guns sign? I am not the author of the letter but I do understand it is hard to read. Below is the letter as written with a link to the original.

Guest viewpoint -- Young County officials don't trust the law

It has taken me some time to decide how I felt about this matter and whether I needed to say anything about it at all. But in the final analysis, I think too many have been too quiet, too long, about a lot of things.
I read your explanation of how you thought the vote of the Young County commissioners to ban persons with licenses to carry concealed handguns from the courthouse was justifiable. I must disagree with what these elected officials have done in Young County, an area of our state I had believed, until now, to have maintained some common sense amidst our current political landscape. Since the inception of the conceal carry law, CCL, in January of 1996, the fine people of Texas have proven the fearmongers and politically correct anti-gun liberals wrong about what this law would do to our state. There has been no bloodbaths in the streets, no courthouses taken by vigilantes and no schools held hostage by legally permitted gun owners. Indeed, no one thinks much of the fact that the guy or gal next to you might have a firearm on or near their person. It hasn’t been a problem for anyone except the person who may have entertained the thought of doing harm to others, but has been deterred by the fact that someone might have the means and ability to retaliate and/or stop them with force. Besides, I believe that a free citizen has the right to defend himself and family against the evil of this world.
Your recognition of the most important aspect of this episode in the reduction of civil rights seems to have been swept away by the time you reach the end of your essay. This will not keep someone from using a gun to do harm in our courthouse. This will not keep an evil or psychotic person from doing what it is they are bent upon doing. And, this fact is where the problem lies, because if the commissioners and the judge believe that removing the legal right provided to citizens by the legislature of the State of Texas to allow our citizens to defend themselves with the same force that may confront them, then we are on a slippery slope. If we ban concealed carry permit holders with their guns in the courthouse, then why not go past the front door to the lawn of the courthouse, or to the perimeter of the square? If it will truly stop harm from befalling anyone, anywhere, why not take it to 1000 feet from the courthouse, or to the city limit signs? Maybe we should go to the county line, or into our homes and stop these gun-toting citizens from even owning a gun. We may even decide that the law is faulty and should be done away with altogether. But that thinking is wrong because it is not the legal gun owner we need to fear. What we should fear is poorly informed and scared bureaucrats who don’t trust the population that they have been charged to protect and defend. And there, I think, is the biggest insult: our commissioner’s court and district judge don’t trust the law or the people who have exercised their rights under that law.
The district judge is an appointment, owing nothing to any voter except to those that voted for the official that is charged with the appointment. This is by design so that we get the best judges on the bench. But it does leave that judge more liable for the political slant of his decisions. Judge Crawford is a fine judge and has shown himself to be capable on the bench. I would hope that his asking for this ban on legally licensed gun owners from our county judge, and in turn from our county commissioners, is not based on a feeling about gun control that is part of his political party affiliation. I feel that he is capable of resisting such pressures. I am greatly dismayed, however, when our county judge says that “for no other reason than the district judge asked” to be the basis of a decision that reverses a legislated right enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the state capitol. Also, I am taken aback when the very man who invited my wife and I to come and earn our conceal carry permits adds his vote to extend the restriction on permit holders from the courtroom, where it has always been banned, to the front doors of the courthouse. My representative to the commissioner’s court went along willingly, and I have no doubt, at the time, felt he was somehow doing someone some good. Political spin aside, the commissioners did not remove legal guns from the courtroom because the CCL has always had them restricted there. This decision simply restricted legal citizens from exercising their rights to carry a concealed gun in the remainder of the courthouse. Courtroom, courthouse — big difference. It ignores the fact that harm can certainly befall anyone outside the courthouse with more certainty than inside the courthouse. Young County has had more shooting incidents outside the courthouse than inside it and that is a fact. There must be another reason for doing what they did. It irks me to think what that reason might have been, because what I thought to be a conservative county court made a horrible liberal decision. The state of Texas had allowed the courthouse ban of CCLs in the courthouse 13 years ago when the law was passed. Many urban, more populated, counties did that very thing. These places tend to be more liberal about some of their thinking, and it was part of a compromise for passage of the law. But why here, in Young County, and why now, 13 years later? It seems to go against the character of the citizens in our county. I mean, we are Texans for gosh sake, in the very best sense of the term. It is hard for me to understand that we did this on the request of one man who was fearful that a legally armed citizen might do harm in the courthouse, even though there is no evidence that a problem exists there that is any greater than outside the courthouse. What happened to make him distrust his fellow citizens who are law abiding, letter of the law, gun-carrying regular folk? Maybe it comes with seeing some of the worst in society from the bench. This was on the backside of the Fort Hood massacre, so maybe the timing was right. Luckily, there were some righteous guns in that room that day at Ft. Hood or that crazy, evil man could have killed many more. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun when he decided to do harm to a courthouse. We can’t stop these people with laws. But, we can hurt this country with misguided restrictions on the rest of us. Maybe our court and elected officials should have asked for some input of the people that elected them before traveling this road. It is a matter that will surely weigh upon the voters come election day. That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
FromI am...

http://www.grahamleader.com/forum.asp?Story=17516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[joe817]

If we look at Penal Code 46.03, we find:
"Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.(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)...
(2)...
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;..."

Continuing on: "(c) In this section: (1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035."

Going to "Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER..
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

So the entire building is off limits for CHL's as I read it. IANAL. And I sure ain't going to argue the point or be a test case.

[chabouk]

If we look at Penal Code 46.03, we find:
"Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.(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)...
(2)...
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;..."

Continuing on: "(c) In this section: (1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035."

Going to "Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER..
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

So the entire building is off limits for CHL's as I read it. IANAL. And I sure ain't going to argue the point or be a test case.

While I also am unwilling to be a test case, "any government court or offices utilized by the court" does not mean the entire building. Especially since the definition of "premises" includes "or a portion of a building".

In many (most?) county courthouses, the actual portion used by the courts is smaller than what is used by the rest of the county government.

[C-dub]

While I also am unwilling to be a test case, "any government court or offices utilized by the court" does not mean the entire building. Especially since the definition of "premises" includes "or a portion of a building".

I don't get it Chabouk. Is it your opinion that anywhere other than the courtroom or offices in the building should be okay or not?

[joe817]

(3) "Premises" means a building..."

I read that as the entire building, and will act accordingly using that assumption.

[chabouk]

While I also am unwilling to be a test case, "any government court or offices utilized by the court" does not mean the entire building. Especially since the definition of "premises" includes "or a portion of a building".

I don't get it Chabouk. Is it your opinion that anywhere other than the courtroom or offices in the building should be okay or not?

Example: lots of cities and counties are leasing commercial space these days. Where I live, the biggest city isn't the county seat, so the courthouse is in a much smaller city 25 miles away. For convenience, the county leases a commerical building and has the tax assessor and county judge's offices there. They are connected, but not in the public access area: the public has to enter separate entrances to access the different offices (the entrances are only about 50' apart).

I definitely do not consider the tag office to be off limits, even though it's in the same building. The judge's offices, being the "portion of a building" where "offices utilized by the court" are located, would be.

[chabouk]

(3) "Premises" means a building..."

I read that as the entire building, and will act accordingly using that assumption.

Acting accordingly is a good way to avoid being a test case.

But, the whole definition makes it clear that the entire building isn't necessarily off limits:

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building.

[Keith B]

(3) "Premises" means a building..."

I read that as the entire building, and will act accordingly using that assumption.

Acting accordingly is a good way to avoid being a test case.

But, the whole definition makes it clear that the entire building isn't necessarily off limits:

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building.

I tend to agree with this statement. Portion is listed under the premises definition. If it wasn't, then the whole building would be off limits.

My personal rule of thumb is there should be doors and walls between the court area and where you can carry (including hallways used strictly for court access.) It shouldn't be too hard to figure out the no-carry areas in most court houses these days as they usually have metal detectors to enter the secured court area. IANAL

[RPB]

Burnet County Courthouse ANNEX building contains offices for the County Tax Assessor/Collector, DPS DRIVER'S LICENSE offices, etc etc etc, but there is a walk-through metal detector and DPS or Deputy Sheriff at the entrance to the building. I even leave my pocket knife in the car. There's a sign on the front entrance, and all other entrances I used to use are now locked. I haven't been back lately to see if it is a valid sign or what, but I seriously doubt I'd carry in there just to become a test case. The DPS PATROL, SherrifF's office are both right next door, and city police a few blocks away, I don't want to be on the TV news either.