TexasCHLforum.com

I think you are going about this backwards. My whole attempt would be to declare that it is NOT considered by the state as a public or private school, and therefore was not illegal to carry there.

If you go back to the links in my previous post showing what the sate and the state defined Texas Private School Accreditation Commission list shows, if your home school was not listed in their lists, then the argument should be that it was NOT defined as a school by the state that defines the TPC for CHL.

Keith B wrote:I think you are going about this backwards. My whole attempt would be to declare that it is NOT considered by the state as a public or private school, and therefore was not illegal to carry there.

If you go back to the links in my previous post showing what the sate and the state defined Texas Private School Accreditation Commission list shows, if your home school was not listed in their lists, then the argument should be that it was NOT defined as a school by the state that defines the TPC for CHL.

The problem with that is that we ARE a private school under the current definition by both Leeper and Chp 46.

Especially if we are leasing a building that has rooms where kids are being taught something (even if one of the teachers is one of the moms). As I said, we have already come up against this by one local bureaucrat - and the ruling was not one that was favorable.

TxFig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You read far too much into Leeper. That case dealt with an alleged civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983 related to Texas' compulsory school attendance pursuant to the Texas Education Code. It had absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes a "school" for purposes of the Texas Penal Code. Leeper has no precedential value in determining what constitutes a "school" for purposes of Chp. 46 of the Texas Penal Code.

I know I'm not reading too much into Leeper re: defining a homeschool as a private school - I spend alot of time with both
Texas Homeschool Coalition (http://www.thsc.org) and Homeschool Legal Defense Association (http://www.hslda.org). Both of those groups deal with legal issues regarding homeschooling on a daily basis.

But you're right in that it does not affect Chp 46 in any way - which is kind of my point and how it relates CHL issues (to keep this on topic for this forum). It would appear based on Chp 46 that private schools ARE included in the automatic list of places forbidding CHL holders from carrying, correct?

If that's so, then because homeschools ARE private schools, it becomes a question as to whether homeschool activities would also fall under the same prohibition.



Obviously I have an agenda in pursuing this - both from a homeschooler point of view as well as a CHL holder. In a nutshell that agenda would be to remove private schools from Chp 46. Doing this would be a benefit to private schools (including but not limited to homeschools) as well as CHL holders.

Yes, you read far too much into Leeper in terms of the TPC prohibition on carrying in schools. However, nothing I can say will change your mind so just don't carry anywhere you feel home-schooling is on-going.

Chas.

TxFig wrote:

Keith B wrote:I think you are going about this backwards. My whole attempt would be to declare that it is NOT considered by the state as a public or private school, and therefore was not illegal to carry there.

If you go back to the links in my previous post showing what the sate and the state defined Texas Private School Accreditation Commission list shows, if your home school was not listed in their lists, then the argument should be that it was NOT defined as a school by the state that defines the TPC for CHL.

The problem with that is that we ARE a private school under the current definition by both Leeper and Chp 46.

Where do you get this under Chp. 46? Don't point to Leeper because it has nothing to do with the Texas Penal Code -- absolutely nothing. It was a §1983 case that involved the Texas Education Code.

Chas.

TxFig wrote:Especially if we are leasing a building that has rooms where kids are being taught something (even if one of the teachers is one of the moms). As I said, we have already come up against this by one local bureaucrat - and the ruling was not one that was favorable.

Is your "school" licensed by the State?

Chas.

If you are really worried about carrying in your homeschool facility; you and the other moms should get together and write yourself authorization to carry.

From PC 46.03 - Places weapons Prohibited

(1) on the physical 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, whether the school or
educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written
regulations or written authorization of the institution

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxFig wrote:Especially if we are leasing a building that has rooms where kids are being taught something (even if one of the teachers is one of the moms). As I said, we have already come up against this by one local bureaucrat - and the ruling was not one that was favorable.

Is your "school" licensed by the State?

Chas.

It is my belief that we are not a "school". In fact, I am positive that NOONE in our support group would claim that we are a school.

But to answer to question directly - No, we are not licensed by the state.

And neither are about 95% (conservatively estimated) private schools in the state.
In fact, it might very well be 100% of the private schools in the state are not licensed by the state (they might have a curriculum that is accredited, but that is a very different issue than the school itself being licensed)...




Look - I really do not mean to sound argumentative. And I DO appreciate the help here. The reason I keep hammering on this is that it is a very steep and short slippery slope. If what we are doing as a homeschool group can be defined as a school, then an entire list of other groups & functions can (and will) be defined as a school.
* church sunday school classes
* church mother's day out programs
* after school programs at non-school locations (such as public libraries or book stores)
* private summer programs
* boy scout meetings

They are all teaching just as much as our homeschool group (or a 'real private school'). The only thing that differs is the course material. And once a an anti-gun group figures out that they have this big stick, it won't be long before they start using it to beat all of us over the head with it.

You can see the danger in that, right?

TxFig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxFig wrote:Especially if we are leasing a building that has rooms where kids are being taught something (even if one of the teachers is one of the moms). As I said, we have already come up against this by one local bureaucrat - and the ruling was not one that was favorable.

Is your "school" licensed by the State?

Chas.

It is my belief that we are not a "school". In fact, I am positive that NOONE in our support group would claim that we are a school.

But to answer to question directly - No, we are not licensed by the state.

And neither are about 95% (conservatively estimated) private schools in the state.
In fact, it might very well be 100% of the private schools in the state are not licensed by the state (they might have a curriculum that is accredited, but that is a very different issue than the school itself being licensed)...




Look - I really do not mean to sound argumentative. And I DO appreciate the help here. The reason I keep hammering on this is that it is a very steep and short slippery slope. If what we are doing as a homeschool group can be defined as a school, then an entire list of other groups & functions can (and will) be defined as a school.
* church sunday school classes
* church mother's day out programs
* after school programs at non-school locations (such as public libraries or book stores)
* private summer programs
* boy scout meetings

They are all teaching just as much as our homeschool group (or a 'real private school'). The only thing that differs is the course material. And once a an anti-gun group figures out that they have this big stick, it won't be long before they start using it to beat all of us over the head with it.

You can see the danger in that, right?

This all points back to the link in my earlier post showing what private schools are accredited in Texas. I think if the TEA or the TPSAC calls them a school and they are the ones appointed by the state for accreditation of educational institutions, then they are the determining factor of who is a school and who is not. Although it has not been tested in court, that would be my line of defense if I needed to prove the venue was not a school. If it isn't accredited by the state or their assigned agency as a school, then it is not a school IMO.

Off to another discussion.

Not to be argumentative, but your claim "And neither are about 95% (conservatively estimated) private schools in the state ", is not founded in fact.

It appears that private schools ARE sanctioned by the State of Texas:

1.) "Registration/Licensing/Accreditation: Through a Letter of Understanding, the Commissioner of Education recognizes the accreditation of non-public schools accredited by any of the accreditation organizations belonging to the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC)."
2.) "Student credits earned in non-public schools accredited by members of TEPSAC are transferable to Texas public schools. Letter of Understanding, Commissioner of Education"

This exerpt might be of interest to you as well: "Home Schooling: Texas has no laws or regulations related to home schooling."

This is from State Regulation of Private Schools - June 2000:

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/RegPrivSchl/texas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may want to consult an attorney that specializes in school accreditation and seek their recommendations.

Hope this helps.

joe817 wrote:Not to be argumentative, but your claim "And neither are about 95% (conservatively estimated) private schools in the state ", is not founded in fact.

It appears that private schools ARE sanctioned by the State of Texas:

1.) "Registration/Licensing/Accreditation: Through a Letter of Understanding, the Commissioner of Education recognizes the accreditation of non-public schools accredited by any of the accreditation organizations belonging to the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC)."

That only applies to ACCREDITED private schools.

The vast majority of private schools are not accredited.


Note that accreditation only has meaning if a student is going to transfer back to a public school. It has no meaning (for example) for a student applying to a college, university, the military, etc.

Keith B wrote:This all points back to the link in my earlier post showing what private schools are accredited in Texas. I think if the TEA or the TPSAC calls them a school and they are the ones appointed by the state for accreditation of educational institutions, then they are the determining factor of who is a school and who is not. Although it has not been tested in court, that would be my line of defense if I needed to prove the venue was not a school. If it isn't accredited by the state or their assigned agency as a school, then it is not a school IMO.

Personally, I would LOVE it if you IMO were the law. But it's not. And therein lies the problem....

Here is a question I need answered. Here in Victoria the local college has signs up that don't comply with the 30.06 rule. They have what I believe is referred to as the gun buster signage and it is only in English. It only refers to concealed carry license holders so my question is twofold. Since they don't comply with the 30.06 rule are they legal in respect to keeping me from having my handgun in my car concealed as I have a concealed license. Second, since it is worded specifically for concealed handgun license holders, what about my wife who carries in her car without a license every where she goes under the current "traveling law" as it currently is worded.

Would I be correct in saying that, first the sign isn't legal and thereby not enforceable under 30.06 even though the intent is to keep concealed license holders from having handguns even in the parking lot. Secondly, would I also be correct in that the wording doesn't take into account those who are carrying under the new traveling provisions without a license and therefore anyone who is carrying under the "traveling" provisions would be exempted from the sign anyhow

A side note, They use the word premises in the sign which they assume, not a good thing for a higher education establishment to do, that includes the all the grounds and property even though under 46.035 the state defines "premises" as being only a building or part of a building.

Consider the worst case. You car is broken into by a student. You gun is stolen and used to kill another student. The gun is traced back to you. The question would obviously be asked; why were you bringing a gun onto school property?

I service in schools occasionally where I might be there for an hour or two. Since my next stop might be someones house or a church, and since I should be able to carry it to and from work, at the school I choose to leave it in my car in a locked safe. If it is stolen and used in a crime, at least I took reasonable measures to keep it safe. (I hope)

Geoelectro

Akarcher,

There are two answers to your question. The first is if you can be arrested. In the case of the local college, the signs are irrelevant to the law. The law is already specific that you cannot have the weapon in the buildings. If the signs are on the buildings, they are not applicable to the parking lots or grounds anyway.

For the signs to apply to the parking lots, they would need to be posted in proper fashion by the entrance to the lots (as a general rule, signs only apply from that point forward). They would also need to be in the exact wording and to the specifications written in the law.

So, from what you have described, you and your wife are both safe from arrest for weapons in the car. Neither of you can legally carry in the buildings.

The second half of your questions is not about arrest, but other penalties. The school, like any employer, can make any rules it wants for administrative punishment. You can be fired (if an employee) or expelled (if a student) for violating the rules of the school. these rules do not have to be written in any specific manner and can be enforced at the whim of the school administration (almost). Your choice on the guns is up to you, and the deciding factor may be how important your relationship with the school is. Can you accept the administrative punishment?

geoelectro wrote:Consider the worst case. You car is broken into by a student. You gun is stolen and used to kill another student. The gun is traced back to you. The question would obviously be asked; why were you bringing a gun onto school property?

The answer would be that I left it in my car because they killed campus carry.

If their hysteria hadn't impeded logical legislation, the gun would have been with me and the thief wouldn't have got it.

boomerang wrote:

geoelectro wrote:Consider the worst case. You car is broken into by a student. You gun is stolen and used to kill another student. The gun is traced back to you. The question would obviously be asked; why were you bringing a gun onto school property?

The answer would be that I left it in my car because they killed campus carry.

If their hysteria hadn't impeded logical legislation, the gun would have been with me and the thief wouldn't have got it.

It wasn't hysteria that killed Campus carry, it was old fashioned dirty politics.