TexasCHLforum.com

longtooth wrote:Yes it is legal. It is alright at our church for sure. If a church does not want anyone carrying under authority of CHL they have to post a 30-06 sign like anyone else. TXI should pop in w/ the paragraph & section before long. I carry at church & many of the members here do too.
Welcome aboard DDM.

Thanks for the clarification....sure 'nuf guess CHL's are allowed to carry in non-posted 30.06 churches....thanks b/c it came out different in our CHL class....

Skipper5 wrote:Thanks for the clarification....sure 'nuf guess CHL's are allowed to carry in non-posted 30.06 churches....thanks b/c it came out different in our CHL class....

Your instructor was either not paying attention in his instructor class, or he did a poor job of teaching the law.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong on the timeline, but...) I believe that only those licensed in the first two years of CHL should have been taught that church carry was illegal. That changed in 1997 (IIRC), when PC46.035 was modified to require 30.06 notice for churches to be off limits.

Even if I'm wrong on the timeline, I'm pretty sure that anyone with a current CHL had either an initial class or renewal class after the law changed. Everyone with a current CHL should know that hospitals and churches are only off-limits if they post via 30.06.

Kevin

Don't remember the dates like you. The rest is correct. There will be several armed in church this morning.

Interesting story about this fellow who carried in his church. Perhaps some of you recall the situation in Ft. Worth several years ago where numerous people were shot in that church.

In my opinion it's always best to carry everywhere you can but two places where people are the most vulnerable are churches and schools. If you can carry there you should. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would never want a gun brought into either of those places under any circumstances - even after something like this happened.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2146

I think it would remove a lot of confusion if the b(3), b(4), and b(5) (hospital, amusement park, and church) locations were just removed from the law.

Is there any reason for those locations to be listed? The way I read it, they are just like any other place. OK to carry unless 30.06 posted. I understand that they were initially listed and were off limits before the 30.06 requirement was put in... but now that it is in there, why continue to list them?

Is there something I am missing that results in them being different than any other privately owned facility?

Sangiovese wrote:I think it would remove a lot of confusion if the b(3), b(4), and b(5) (hospital, amusement park, and church) locations were just removed from the law.

Is there any reason for those locations to be listed?

It was probably politically easier to add (i) than to remove (b)(3), (4), and (5); and it allows municipal facilities to be posted, which they otherwise could not be.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:...it allows municipal facilities to be posted, which they otherwise could not be.

Does that mean that you are of the opinion that a city owned / run hospital is allowed to post 30.06? I always thought that the prohibition from municipalities enforcing 30.06 meant that only private hospitals were allowed to enforce that - not public ones.

Has made for some interresting situations in Austin with the city owning and running specific floors of some hospitals.

Kalrog wrote:Does that mean that you are of the opinion that a city owned / run hospital is allowed to post 30.06? I always thought that the prohibition from municipalities enforcing 30.06 meant that only private hospitals were allowed to enforce that - not public ones.

Maybe.

If someone is arrested for carrying with a CHL in a city-owned hospital that is posted, it's going to be an interesting case.

30.06 says that county and municipal facilities can't be posted.

46.035 says that hospitals are off-limits if posted, and doesn't mention public versus private.

As I see it, the law is inconsistent. That's why we have judges and lawyers. A judge might rule that a city-owned hospital can't be posted, but he might not.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Kalrog wrote:Does that mean that you are of the opinion that a city owned / run hospital is allowed to post 30.06? I always thought that the prohibition from municipalities enforcing 30.06 meant that only private hospitals were allowed to enforce that - not public ones.

Maybe.

If someone is arrested for carrying with a CHL in a city-owned hospital that is posted, it's going to be an interesting case.

Yup. And you can be darned tootin' that I will not be the defendant.

My priest has NEVER seen me at church when I wasn't a concealed handgun. There are several of us in our church who carry at every church function.

Sangiovese wrote:I think it would remove a lot of confusion if the b(3), b(4), and b(5) (hospital, amusement park, and church) locations were just removed from the law.

Is there any reason for those locations to be listed? The way I read it, they are just like any other place. OK to carry unless 30.06 posted. I understand that they were initially listed and were off limits before the 30.06 requirement was put in... but now that it is in there, why continue to list them?

Is there something I am missing that results in them being different than any other privately owned facility?

I may be wrong but it looks to me like if your carrying w/ a CHL in a church, hospital or amusement park that is posted, you would be violating both 30.06 "Trespass By....", AND 46.035 "Unlawful Carrying..." breaking 2 statutes, both a Class A Misdemeanor, therefore the penalty could be twice that of violating a 30.06 in some other type of extablishment.

BadCo45ACP wrote:I may be wrong but it looks to me like if your carrying w/ a CHL in a church, hospital or amusement park that is posted, you would be violating both 30.06 "Trespass By....", AND 46.035 "Unlawful Carrying..." breaking 2 statutes, both a Class A Misdemeanor, therefore the penalty could be twice that of violating a 30.06 in some other type of extablishment.

I agree in principle.

In reality, DAs tend to prosecute only the worst offense that someone committed. I'm not sure why. Maybe just to make their own job simpler. And first-offense misdemeanor convictions almost always get probation and a fine.

The real penalty for any of these violations is losing your CHL.

- Jim

That would be a good reason to have a Utah license as well.

I guess I am an exception to the rule. My church is help in an elementary school = no carry. Maybe I should change churches.

I wouldn't want to be the person that had to tell LT or Carlson1 they couldn't carry in their churches.

Could be hazardous to your health