The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
That would be a good deed for the TSRA to do. Either they are not doing it, or the ball is getting dropped on the NRA side.seamusTX wrote:The TSRA monitors Texas legislation and probably communicates that information to the NRA-ILA. Every state has some kind of state rifle association that has a similar political function.
I went ahead and replied:Dear Mr. [removed],
Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.
No posting is needed. The owner must provide notice to the person by oral or written communication. The only reason posting is on here is that posting has to be specific size and information.
License holder is still prohibited from carrying the handgun in those specific places under Section 46.03 or 46.035
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.
Hope this information helps.
Cordially,
Kaelan Jones
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Kaelan,
Thank you for your reply.
I do not want to belabor the point, but the document on the
NRA-ILA website is factually incorrect and should be corrected.
The NRA-ILA document states that it is unlawful for a handgun
license holder to carry a handgun on the premises of a hospital
or nursing home, a place of religious worship, etc. This is
simply not true.
The NRA-ILA document is saying that these areas are off-limits,
period, and that's incorrect.
CHL holders are free to enter those places UNLESS they have
received lawful notice that they may not carry there.
The NRA-ILA document makes no mention of the posting exception.
This is telling people that a hospital or church is off-limits,
period, when it is not.
Charles Cotton is an NRA board member, and an attorney in Texas.
He has been instrumental in getting most of these changes made to
the law, and he can easily be contacted to confirm this
information.
This hospital and church issue is a common misunderstanding in
Texas, and we need to get the right information out there. Even
many CHL instructors don't know this law, and allowing a
factually incorrect document to remain on the NRA-ILA website
further perpetuates that error.
[My name]
In my opinion the only issue regarding amusement parks that is complicated is the exact definition of what constitutes an amusement park. As you point out, it seems that only Six Flags Over Texas and Sea World meet the definition.TheArmedFarmer wrote: ...
Amusement parks, on the other hand, is an issue that is complicated and frequently misunderstood. The definition of an amusement park is so restricted that only a few locations have ever met it. Currently, only Six Flags and Sea World meet the definition.
...
You should have said what we all say when someone quotes that..License holder is still prohibited from carrying the handgun in those specific places under Section 46.03 or 46.035
It's complicated enough that the issue is one of the FAQs here.ScottDLS wrote:In my opinion the only issue regarding amusement parks that is complicated is the exact definition of what constitutes an amusement park.
Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant to say (Bexar, Harris, Tarrant and Dallas).seamusTX wrote:It's complicated enough that the issue is one of the FAQs here.ScottDLS wrote:In my opinion the only issue regarding amusement parks that is complicated is the exact definition of what constitutes an amusement park.
Only four counties in Texas have more than a million population (Bexar, Harris, Tarrant, and Fort Worth). Even before PC 46.035(i) was added, nothing else was worth thinking twice about.
According to those who were there in 1995, the amusement park clause was tailored for the now-closed Six Flags Astroworld in Houston.
- Jim