SFA: Arrested for "Place where Weapons Prohibited"

[mgood]

Just because a gun does not travel out of the state, does not mean it hasn't affected interstate commerce.

Seems that an item can affect interstate commerce by being something that prevents the buyer from buying one that DID come from out of state.

There was a farmer that was growing grain (or something) to feed to his own farm animals. The government, it its wiseness, decided that activity COULD be regulated by the interstate commerce clause because if it weren't for his growing his own grain, he would have had to purchase grain that DID travel from out of state. Therefore his activity DID affect interstate commerce.

With that definition, absolutely EVERYTHING affects interstate commerce.

Speaking of, um, agriculture.
During discusssion of legalizing marijuana in California, the argument has been made that if it's grown in California, sold in California, and smoked in California, then it's none of the federal government's business. (A position with which I firmly agree. I'm not a pothead, just a big advocate of state's rights.) I think Washington D.C. has, at least in the past, taken the stance that pot grown in California looks just like pot grown in Arizona, and since they couldn't prove it had not been involved in interstate commerce, they intended to regulate it. (What happened to burden of proof being on the accuser?) I think this issue has come up now and then going back to at least 1970. Probably never went away. Most of what I heard about it was back during the Clinton administration. A quick Google showed me that there's some sort of ballot initiative there this year to legalize marijuana.

Most people on this forum are probably aware that Montana passed the "Firearms Freedom Act" last year. It says that those who manufacture and sell guns and ammunition within the state's borders are not beholden to federal firearm regulations. I think seven states have passed such laws now. The federal government disagrees (big surprise).

[mgood]

05/02/2010 at approximately 2:25 am officers observed suspicious
activity...

My word! What could possibly be suspicious about activity in a parking area at 2.25 AM - no way!

Oh, God, here we go again!

You do realize, don't you, that not everybody wakes up at 5:00AM and is in bed by 9:00PM?

We now live in a 24-hour-a-day world. I've frequently done my shopping at the grocery store or Wal-Mart between the hours of midnight and 4:00am. Weekly, sometimes daily, I stop at a convenience store or go through a fast-food drive through during those hours. People are out and about. Some people don't get it.

[Hoi Polloi]

Most people on this forum are probably aware that Montana passed the "Firearms Freedom Act" last year. It says that those who manufacture and sell guns and ammunition within the state's borders are not beholden to federal firearm regulations. I think seven states have passed such laws now. The federal government disagrees (big surprise).

1) What's the likelihood that such a law could be passed in Texas during the next session?

2) What's the likelihood that the federal govt will sue Montana and take them in front of the UN?

[Oldgringo]

05/02/2010 at approximately 2:25 am officers observed suspicious
activity...

My word! What could possibly be suspicious about activity in a parking area at 2.25 AM - no way!

Oh, God, here we go again!

You do realize, don't you, that not everybody wakes up at 5:00AM and is in bed by 9:00PM?

We now live in a 24-hour-a-day world. I've frequently done my shopping at the grocery store or Wal-Mart between the hours of midnight and 4:00am. Weekly, sometimes daily, I stop at a convenience store or go through a fast-food drive through during those hours. People are out and about. Some people don't get it.

Some people don't get it...and some people do.

[sjfcontrol]

[
1) What's the likelihood that such a law could be passed in Texas during the next session?

Are you talking about guns, or Marijuana?

[Hoi Polloi]

Something just occurred to me that hasn't been brought up in response to the question of if it could happen to you: if a police officer asks your permission to search you or your car, politely say no. He has to have just cause to do so (which means if he has just cause he doesn't need your permission) OR your permission in the place of just cause. Don't provide the latter. The only possible outcomes are nothing but hassle or potentially incriminating evidence being found.

I would be interested in hearing TX specifics to amend or clarify this point.

[Hoi Polloi]

[
1) What's the likelihood that such a law could be passed in Texas during the next session?

Are you talking about guns, or Marijuana?

LOL. I was referring to the part of the post I quoted which only spoke of Montana's Firearms Freedom Act.

Most people on this forum are probably aware that Montana passed the "Firearms Freedom Act" last year. It says that those who manufacture and sell guns and ammunition within the state's borders are not beholden to federal firearm regulations. I think seven states have passed such laws now. The federal government disagrees (big surprise).

1) What's the likelihood that such a law could be passed in Texas during the next session?

2) What's the likelihood that the federal govt will sue Montana and take them in front of the UN?

[mgood]

1) What's the likelihood that such a law could be passed in Texas during the next session?

I think such a bill was introduced in Texas during the last legislative session. It, along with our parking lot and campus carry bills, were delayed by other things on the agenda and never came up for a vote. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

2) What's the likelihood that the federal govt will sue Montana . . . ?

I think there's already a suit pending.

[TexasComputerDude]

I had assumed that the SFA in the subject was referring to Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches.

Correct

[TexasComputerDude]

Something just occurred to me that hasn't been brought up in response to the question of if it could happen to you: if a police officer asks your permission to search you or your car, politely say no. He has to have just cause to do so (which means if he has just cause he doesn't need your permission) OR your permission in the place of just cause. Don't provide the latter. The only possible outcomes are nothing but hassle or potentially incriminating evidence being found.

I would be interested in hearing TX specifics to amend or clarify this point.

Well being a student, it wouldn't surprise me if I signed something saying I could be searched at any time.

[TexasComputerDude]

05/02/2010 at approximately 2:25 am officers observed suspicious
activity...

My word! What could possibly be suspicious about activity in a parking area at 2.25 AM - no way!

Oh, God, here we go again!

You do realize, don't you, that not everybody wakes up at 5:00AM and is in bed by 9:00PM?

That garage is faculty only on the first three floors. So a couple guys parked on the first floor ramp is suspicious.

SFA has cameras EVERWHERE. ESP in the garages. I wouldn't be surprised if the police had been watching them.

[hirundo82]

Can someone sticky some facts on carrying around schools. Every time a thread pops up like this I always get confused as to where I can carry. Last I knew, I could carry concealed with my CHL up to the front door of the public schools. Is this different for a college campus like The community College in Plano? Isn't that campus where they have the gun show or is that different?

Seems the older I get, the easier I get confused..........

Just keep repeating to yourself "Premises means a building or a portion of a building" until you know it by heart. Of all the places CHLs can't carry (without §30.06 notice), virtually all mention premises--the secure area of an airport is the only one that doesn't.

[RPB]

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

This is true concerning the Penal Code definition ...(Texas Penal Code
Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. refers to Penal Code Section 46.035)

BUT Texas Education Code refers to another definition .... for certain purposes ...

"exhibiting, using, or threatening to
exhibit or use" and purposes of enhancement of a punishment when in a school parking lot etc.

Texas Education Code - Section 37.125. Exhibition Of Firearms
§ 37.125. EXHIBITION OF FIREARMS. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person, by exhibiting, using, or threatening to
exhibit or use a firearm, interferes with the normal use of a
building or portion of a campus or of a school bus being used to
transport children to or from school-sponsored activities of a
private or public school.
(b) An offense under this section is a third degree felony.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29521&p=341245&hili ... ol#p341245" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29294&p=340859&hili ... ol#p340859" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

if convicted under Texas Education Code, EDC Section 37.125 , (INSTEAD OF PENAL CODE which says that "building or a portion of a building" definition) then when the penalty phase of a bifurcated trail begins, for enhancement purposes only, the definition of premises then changes to our detriment. In my view, it's just a glitch I'd hope could be cleared up in the next legislative session, if they use the same definition of premises both times, but they's still be able to use enhancement of a penalty for violations of anything but Penal Code 46.03(a)(1), such as Texas Education Code violations.

§ 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE
SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the
punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is
increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest
category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the
trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place
that the actor knew was:
(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or
(2) on premises where:
(A) an official school function is taking place;
or
(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the
University Interscholastic League is taking place.
(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section
46.03(a)(1).
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises"
have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety
Code."



Texas Health & Safety Code - Section 481.134. Drug-Free Zones
(4) "Premises" means real property and all buildings
and appurtenances pertaining to the real property.

[tacticool]

As a reminder, MPA only protects you if you're not committing crimes.

Technically "engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic" but either Public Intoxication or Possession of a Dangerous Drug is enough to make MPA not apply.

Also, prosecutors have been known to charge people with crimes that are a stretch, to improve their bargaining position.

[VoiceofReason]

Help me understand this.

If I enter school property with my gun in the glove compartment, and it stays there, I am not violating state law but I am violating Federal law?

If the city, county or state police do not arrest someone for having a gun in the glove compartment, who will arrest that person on the Federal charge?

I thought I had it nailed down but now ????????