TexasCHLforum.com

IMO and IANAL, but I believe that no matter what the school did at a mall, it doesn't matter, you're safe.

However, let's say a school rents a Sokol hall or something like that.... then that building that wasn't posted suddenly becomes a "premises" for the purpose intent.

I would call it off limits for me. Probably look at the event & the mall. May stay outside the door watching while party went in for support of a fund raising function or such. May disarm & go in if all looked VERY civil in the Mall.

Definately would not attend just a fun function.
My position. YMMV
LT

A bunch of kids with choir shirts going to the all to eat is not a school sponsored event.

The key word is sponsored.

If what crossfire is implying is correct then ANY mall is automatically off-limts.

How about let's anchor to reality.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:A bunch of kids with choir shirts going to the all to eat is not a school sponsored event.

The key word is sponsored.

If what crossfire is implying is correct then ANY mall is automatically off-limts.

How about let's anchor to reality.

Anygunanywhere

I look at it logically. If I go to a city park and there is a High School Base ball game going on, this is an obvious spocered school event. If you are there you should be aware of what is going on. It doesn't matter if it is on school property or not. If I go to a mall and a few kids show up with a teacher at the food court .. As far as I'm concerned its not a school event and whats going on is not my concern. However the teacher that takes them there is participating in the event and could be proscecuted if they were caught carrying.

Its all a matter of perspective. Keep the gun concealed and there shouldn't be any issues.

Anygun, I wish that it was that simple. If the school is paying for all of their choir to go to the mall, eat at the mall, explain how that is not a school sponsored event......school is footing the bill, 40 kids are in uniform, and believe it or not, eating is an event. I know that this is nit-picking, but I just wanted to be on the safe/legal side of things. I thought that this forum was a place where I could ask for advice from fellow CHLers, not a breeding ground for know-it-alls who want to insult legitimate questions. If I have taken your comments the wrong way, I apologize.

Here is Charles thoughts on the subject, posted in another thread.

As others have mentioned, there is some dispute on what constitutes "grounds." I believe the statute taken as a whole indicates the activity has to be occurring on grounds owned by the school, as all of TPC §46.02(a) deals with schools. The buildings are school buildings, the transportation vehicles are the schools'. (If school children ride a city buss to the zoo, the bus would not be off limits to CHLs because the buss is not "a transportation vehicle of the school, . . .") Further, the statute allows the carrying of firearms in such places, with "written authorization" of the institution. It would be quite a stretch to presume that the Legislature intended the school to have the authority to authorize the carrying of firearms on someone else's property. When read in its entirety, as we are required to do, I believe TPC §46.02(a) applies only to school property and school vehicles.

But as noted, this is a gray area; the cutting edge of the law where many people find themselves bleeding to death.

Chas.

Great post...it makes things much clearer. Thank you.

nils wrote:Anygun, I wish that it was that simple. If the school is paying for all of their choir to go to the mall, eat at the mall, explain how that is not a school sponsored event......school is footing the bill, 40 kids are in uniform, and believe it or not, eating is an event. I know that this is nit-picking, but I just wanted to be on the safe/legal side of things. I thought that this forum was a place where I could ask for advice from fellow CHLers, not a breeding ground for know-it-alls who want to insult legitimate questions. If I have taken your comments the wrong way, I apologize.

There was a thread here recently where a poster was eating at a McDonald's and a school busload of kids came in to eat.

This, IMHO, does not make the place off-limits. There is no roving "gun free school zone" that magically follows a school bus load of kids or a school choir eating at a mall that makes concealed carry illegal.

This is my opinion, is not meant to be taken as a statement from a "know-it-all" and did not insult any legitimate questions. If my opinion runs counter to other poster's opinions that we should run and hide when we see a school bus unloading at a public place where concealed carry is legal then please post along with your question what kinds of posts you want on this thread.

Nils, I find it to be "that simple". I see no gray area. If you want to be on the safe side that is your decision to make.

If my response seems short and curt, it was not intended to offend anyone. I just happen to disagree.

Anygunanywhere

Understood...thanks for the clarification.

Liberty wrote:If I go to a city park and there is a High School Base ball game going on, this is an obvious sponsored school event.

High school sporting events are covered in 46.035(2), and are off-limits anywhere they are held. The PC clearly treats sporting events separately from "school sponsored events".

But I agree that you should know what is going on in a park that you are visiting.

FlynJay wrote:Here is Charles thoughts on the subject, posted in another thread.

As others have mentioned, there is some dispute on what constitutes "grounds." I believe the statute taken as a whole indicates the activity has to be occurring on grounds owned by the school, as all of TPC §46.02(a) deals with schools. The buildings are school buildings, the transportation vehicles are the schools'. (If school children ride a city buss to the zoo, the bus would not be off limits to CHLs because the buss is not "a transportation vehicle of the school, . . .") Further, the statute allows the carrying of firearms in such places, with "written authorization" of the institution. It would be quite a stretch to presume that the Legislature intended the school to have the authority to authorize the carrying of firearms on someone else's property. When read in its entirety, as we are required to do, I believe TPC §46.02(a) applies only to school property and school vehicles.

But as noted, this is a gray area; the cutting edge of the law where many people find themselves bleeding to death.

Chas.

This is a very good post by Charles, especially the last line. It has never been tested, and I personally don't want to be the test case.

With that said, first, IANAL, but my thought is if you are in a public location and a group of school kids shows up on a sponsored event, keep it covered, finish your business quickly WITHOUT interacting with the group, and distance yourself or leave the area.

I think the interaction portion is the key. Take the mall for instance. If you stand as a member of the audience and watch the choir sing, or hang around the area loitering, then IMO you would be in violation. But, if you happen to go directly past and on down the mall to do your business, away from the choir, then you were trying to avoid it and would have a reasonable defense to prosecution.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the way the law is written and I think you COULD be found guilty by the wrong judge or jury. I personally believe it was not the intent of the statue, as Charles stated, but it is gray enough to be twisted around by a prosecutor or DA that wants to push it. Again, you may beat the rap, but not the ride.

Again, IANAL so YMMV.

I'm not seeing it, but I also don't want to have to hire a lawyer and be a test case. LOL

This doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test, but we know that not all laws, lawyers and judges are reasonable. But how about this....

School X decides to have a "Holiday Shopping Field Trip at the Mall" day. That sure sounds like a school sponsored event, eh? Now you're at the mall. Wow...there are a bunch of kids at the mall. There aren't signs telling you that it's HSFTatM day. Kids are in every hallway and virtually every store in the mall. And you're in violation?

Same situation... Except you're in Borders book store when that choir trip drops into the food court... Premises is defined by walls and doors... you're inside the same walls and doors as the choir that's in the food court. You're in violation?

I just don't think so. But again, IANAL and IDWTBTTC (I don't want to be the test case).

Morgan wrote:I'm not seeing it, but I also don't want to have to hire a lawyer and be a test case. LOL

This doesn't pass the "reasonable man" test, but we know that not all laws, lawyers and judges are reasonable. But how about this....

School X decides to have a "Holiday Shopping Field Trip at the Mall" day. That sure sounds like a school sponsored event, eh? Now you're at the mall. Wow...there are a bunch of kids at the mall. There aren't signs telling you that it's HSFTatM day. Kids are in every hallway and virtually every store in the mall. And you're in violation?

Same situation... Except you're in Borders book store when that choir trip drops into the food court... Premises is defined by walls and doors... you're inside the same walls and doors as the choir that's in the food court. You're in violation?

I just don't think so. But again, IANAL and IDWTBTTC (I don't want to be the test case).

I don't really disagree with you. If it is not an organized function (i.e. choir/band performance, etc.) and you were not participating somehow (watching them, or went there specifically to see the performance) then I think they would be hard pressed to say you were in violation. HOWEVER, just like any gray area law, it can be twisted to be what and vindictive DA or prosecutor could want to try and make it. So, until there is a test case (and you and I both don't want to be the ones) we will never know. My thought is, if it looks like a school function, and walks like a school function, talks like a school function, and smells like a school function (middle school boys involved LOL), best steer clear and avoid it!!

I'm not leaving or going back out to the car to lock up my sidearm just because the school bus unloads into the mall, zoo or whatever even if it is their field trip. And yes, if it really comes down to it, I will be the test case. But "concealed means concealed," right?

Bottom line is, to me, that none of this matters until you reveal you are carrying. A law that is not enforced, correctly or incorrectly interpreted, does not matter. If you have to defend yourself or those kids, you will be demonized by some and made out as a hero by others. That is the court of public opinion and where a CHL holders fate ultimately rests much of the time. I have and will continue to work to help any CHL holder that I feel is in the right, in any way I can. Same for gun owners and LEOs and anyone else that the legal system tries to roll over because of its prejudice.

For the most part it is opinion and risk analysis. Will I go unarmed or not act for something that might get me wrongfully accused? No I will not. I will chance what I feel are those grey areas. That comes from a person that couldn't pay for the cost of doing so in money or reputation loss. I do it because it is the right thing. Everything else is irrelevant if I could have saved myself or one innocent person. After the discussion is one simple fact. This is possibly life or death. Legalities and CHLs are meaningless if good people don't take the overwhelming risk to do what is right. IANAL