Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Lucky!Charles L. Cotton wrote:(My 2009 agenda is already getting full!)
Chas.
Yes, and pretty much no one else notices, if that makes sense...Jacob Staff wrote:Stevie, when you where the "red" badge, does anyone besides the security guard signing you in even notice the difference?
There is a sign saying you are not allowed to go to a meeting. Is this for a large public meeting or does this cover individual meetings?
) that: I believe that the intent of the Texas legislature was to protect all school children, wherever they might be, from law abiding CHL holders who might actually protect and defend them in the event of an attack from a non law abiding criminal.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I believe Sludge is correct. Implicit in the statute is that the school owns the "grounds," but this is far from clear. This is why I believe the definition of "premises" needs to be clarified and in relation to schools, I also want to see TPC §46.03(a)(1) clarified/narrowed as well. However, this may well become moot, if CHL authorization is expanded to exclude them from TPC §46.03 as are LEO's, judges, prosecutors, probation officers and others. (My 2009 agenda is already getting full!
Chas.
I know it's really semantics, and kind of stretchy at that, but I would have to argue that my being present at a place where it would be otherwise legal for me to possess my CH under the authority of my CHL would retain the same status when a school tour group came through.any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted
The general prohibition on carrying in a school or premises where a school-sponsored activity is taking place is in 46.03, which applies to everyone except peace officers and to all weapons.jimlongley wrote:Once again we are presented with a piece of legislation that could have implications far beyond what may have been its intent. It may be that the only thing the original author intended was to keep parents from escorting their kids to the prom, or chaperoning a trip to the Alamo, or some other innocuous thing,
BTW, this seems redundant in light of 46.03.... on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place,...
We really need to find this "rare" sarcastic emoticon...llwatson wrote:I believe that the intent of the Texas legislature was to protect all school children, wherever they might be, from law abiding CHL holders who might actually protect and defend them in the event of an attack from a non law abiding criminal.Charles L. Cotton wrote:I believe Sludge is correct. Implicit in the statute is that the school owns the "grounds," but this is far from clear. This is why I believe the definition of "premises" needs to be clarified and in relation to schools, I also want to see TPC §46.03(a)(1) clarified/narrowed as well. However, this may well become moot, if CHL authorization is expanded to exclude them from TPC §46.03 as are LEO's, judges, prosecutors, probation officers and others. (My 2009 agenda is already getting full!
Chas.
So, as a law abiding CHL holder, wherever there are school children in organized groups, on school property or otherwise, I will retreat. It is my duty. Long live our state legislature.
IMHO, you can push these school sponsored event things and premises things only so far. What if a restaurant banquet room is rented for a dinner?NcongruNt wrote:This brings up something I thought about, provoked by this thread.stevie_d_64 wrote:I believe it does...Sludge wrote:I think you have to look at the intent here. The school was on a "field trip". I doubt that the school had rented that building out for their activities, more likely they where invited guests. Now If it was at a private event, say renting a restaurant for a night that was closed down to the pubic and was only available for students, parents and faculty, In my opinion then you would be at fault for carrying in that situation , I think in that situation you would be at fault due to that being a "school sponsored event".
If that makes any sense.
Lets rattle off a list of situations where a school would rent or lease a facility where we would normally be ok to carry in, yet if it fell into these conditions, we would not be able to at that particular time...
I can think of a few...
Prom
School Athletic Banquets
School Music Department performances
etc etc etc...
If a school rents a ballroom for a prom event, what does that do to your carry status? Ordinarily, you are fine in a hotel room because you are renting those premises for your use. If a school is renting the banquet hall, does that preclude you from carrying legally, as the "school-sponsored event" takes place in the same facility that you are staying? In reading the law, I would think yes. This doesn't seem right, though. If this is true, I guess I'd have to check all my hotel bookings in advance to make sure there's no school banquet or dance going on.
I've seen school buses idling outside a business when its only the driver running an errand. So I didn't necessarily connect the bus to an activty. The driver could have been at City Hall on business without kids.llwatson wrote:There was a big yellow bus outside, there were school kids inside.
You don't think maybe this was a school sponsored event?
Agreed.seamusTX wrote:I think the intent was more to prevent people bringing weapons to school sports events. You don't see too many people getting in fights over piano recitals.
You can see more clearly what the legislature intended in 46.035:BTW, this seems redundant in light of 46.03.... on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place,...
- Jim
Scuze me, Stevie! I forgot the protocol!stevie_d_64 wrote:
We really need to find this "rare" sarcastic emoticon...
It's just seething today for some reason...
If I want people to know I am being sarcastic...(No, not Steve!)
I usually put this at the tail end of my sarcasm...
(/sarcasm)
FYI...
