TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Been lurking here when I can to get the TRUE scoop, so i'm very glad to read this. keep up the good fight, sir!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today. Chas.

Thank you Charles. We know you are working hard for theses bills and I thank you! We are playing the waiting game. We are watching the horizon, as difficult is it might be.

This is worse than waiting in an oats field, next to a 3 acre stock pond, waiting for the doves to fly by.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Is campus carry also part of the discussions or is it now on the back burner for this session?

txyaloo wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Is campus carry also part of the discussions or is it now on the back burner for this session?

As Charles said, the opposition reads this forum. It may be impolitic at this moment to discuss it in public.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

Bladed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

I'm fairly confident that you will lose that argument in court. And lose badly.

ISD's are "educational institutions", clear as day.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Bladed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

I'm fairly confident that you will lose that argument in court. And lose badly.

ISD's are "educational institutions", clear as day.

So if a school district uses its investment fund to develop an apartment complex as a source of income and equity for the district, no resident of that apartment complex may lawfully possess a gun?

As I said before, this is a question for the lawyers and the courts, but it's definitely not as simple as pointing out that an independent school district is an educational institution. You have to look at the intent of the law and the intent behind the chosen wording. Why does the law say "on the physical premises of a school or educational institution" and not "in any building owned by an educational institution"?

If I own five rent houses plus the house in which I live, any of those could be described as "a home owned by Bladed," but only the one in which I live could accurately be described as "the home of Bladed." Just as interpreting these two phrases is more complicated than being able to define "home" and "Bladed," interpreting the law in question is more complicated than being able to define "premises" and "educational institution."

The apparent intent of the law is to keep guns out of school buildings and buildings where school-sponsored activities are taking place. It would have been much easier for lawmakers to simply prohibit guns in any building owned by an educational institution, but they went out of their way to use more-complicated language. It's reasonable to assume they did so for a reason.

The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Anything on HB910 or SB17??? I heard HB308 made it out of sub committee yesterday!!

Winchster wrote:The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Why do you think it (the building) is "improperly posted"? I live and work in Garland and have been there many times. I can assure you it is properly posted if that's proper wording. The building is owned and operated by GISD. I can't say for sure about the actual ground it is on. I think the land is owned by the City of Garland, but not 100% positive on that. 30.06 is posted on every public enterance and also has had metal detectors every time I've been there. The parking lot is not posted and AFAIK you can walk around and right up to the front door with your CHL and weapon as long as you don't walk through the door with it. You are correct in that it is down the street from Naaman Forest HS, but the two properties are not divided by anything.

Please keep us posted as to when we can watch for the live video feed of the HB910 and/or 308 vote!

txglock21 wrote:

Winchster wrote:The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Why do you think it (the building) is "improperly posted"? I live and work in Garland and have been there many times. I can assure you it is properly posted if that's proper wording. The building is owned and operated by GISD. I can't say for sure about the actual ground it is on. I think the land is owned by the City of Garland, but not 100% positive on that. 30.06 is posted on every public enterance and also has had metal detectors every time I've been there. The parking lot is not posted and AFAIK you can walk around and right up to the front door with your CHL and weapon as long as you don't walk through the door with it. You are correct in that it is down the street from Naaman Forest HS, but the two properties are not divided by anything.

It's a government owned building.

Winchster wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Winchster wrote:The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Why do you think it (the building) is "improperly posted"? I live and work in Garland and have been there many times. I can assure you it is properly posted if that's proper wording. The building is owned and operated by GISD. I can't say for sure about the actual ground it is on. I think the land is owned by the City of Garland, but not 100% positive on that. 30.06 is posted on every public enterance and also has had metal detectors every time I've been there. The parking lot is not posted and AFAIK you can walk around and right up to the front door with your CHL and weapon as long as you don't walk through the door with it. You are correct in that it is down the street from Naaman Forest HS, but the two properties are not divided by anything.

It's a government owned building.

Is an ISD a government agency? I truly don't know, but also the Dallas County Tax Office in Garland is definitely government- owned and yet is "properly posted" also. Both are listed on Texas3006.com. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

txglock21 wrote: Is an ISD a government agency? I truly don't know, but also the Dallas County Tax Office in Garland is definitely government- owned and yet is "properly posted" also. Both are listed on Texas3006.com. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

One final comment, then I will quit hijacking the thread. Yes an ISD is a government agency, as is the tax office and one of the sections of 30.06 reads:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Therefore, to me, and many others, it is "improperly" posted.