TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:

Hot Texan wrote:Sure. Those are places where LEO generally can't carry either, but there's no reason someone with a CHL shouldn't be legally able to carry everywhere a LEO can while not in the actual discharge of their duties. If a cop can carry while voting during their lunch break, no citizen with a CHL should be denied the same confluence of rights.

During the mid-term elections there was a cop at my voting location standing in line in front of me. He was in uniform, but his holster was empty. I asked him about it and he said it was illegal for him to carry at a polling place while off-duty. He said firearms are only legal for officers who are in the process of discharging their duty.

I'm not sure if he was right or wrong. It's just what he told me.

On the law, he's wrong. And he should know better. What he may have been alluding to is some policy particular to his department, but there is no state law banning a peace officer from carrying in a polling place, on or off duty.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a): (2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;

Edited to add: other possibility is the person you met was a security guard and not a peace officer

Are we permitted to leave the gun in the car?

knotquiteawake wrote:Are we permitted to leave the gun in the car?

Yes

A-R wrote:
Edited to add: other possibility is the person you met was a security guard and not a peace officer

The patch on his shoulder said Police, but from a small agency. He was apparently misinformed about the law.

recaffeination wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Because the libs don't want you hurting any of their voters.

[ Image ]

The real reason is they want decent people to be intimidated by those thugs. If decent people carry concealed, it intimidates nobody because it's concealed, but it allows the decent people to stand up and be counted at the polls, instead of being afraid of the thugocrats. No other explanation makes logical sense. It's as silly as prohibiting a concealed bible at polling places by screaming separation of church and state.

Check the history of gun laws. That is exactly why Tammany Hall got their guy, crooked old Tim Sullivan, to get the infamous Sullivan Law through the NY Assembly in 1912. Just before that, some Tammany Hall thugs got shot when they tried to intimidate Republican voters, and Tammany Hall could not allow the peasants to be able to fight back against thei paid thugs.

What if voting is conducted in the back portion of a church building, in fellowship hall, which has a separate entrance that's used on election day?

The church office, which is in the front portion of the building, is closed off by a door during elections. Signs are posted to voters to go to the back of the building.

It's the same building. Does the presence of the door create a separate "premises" ?

If I had occasion to be at the office part of the building on that day, would it be pushing the limits to carry there?

( Church isn't posted )

katmandu wrote:would it be pushing the limits to carry there?

While technically it may be OK to carry, I wouldn't.

It may be like a building with a courthouse in it.
Court may not be in session, or you may have a direct entrance to the portion of the building you want to enter, but the court is still there.

geekwagun wrote:Because everyone knows that the mere presence of a gun, even if it unseen, will cause people to be intimidated.

That could be the case anywhere in public. Right?

I believe a license to carry should be a license to carry anywhere (with the exception of bars). When a CHL applicant has had the thorough background check performed and then is awarded the permit, you are seen in the eyes of the state as a low/no risk, or one wouldn't have been awarded the permit.

So, someone please explain to me why standing in certain buildings/establishments I'm considered a low/no risk, but when I stand in other buildings/establishments I suddenly become more of a possible dangerous threat?

Teamless wrote:

katmandu wrote:would it be pushing the limits to carry there?

While technically it may be OK to carry, I wouldn't.

It may be like a building with a courthouse in it.
Court may not be in session, or you may have a direct entrance to the portion of the building you want to enter, but the court is still there.

My uncle voted at the United Grocery Store in Lubbock.
If I went with him because I needed Milk, but I had already voted ...
The day before and after it is a voting location, it's obviously OK to carry there at the grocery store.

pmcdn wrote:

geekwagun wrote:Because everyone knows that the mere presence of a gun, even if it unseen, will cause people to be intimidated.

That could be the case anywhere in public. Right?

I believe a license to carry should be a license to carry anywhere (with the exception of bars). When a CHL applicant has had the thorough background check performed and then is awarded the permit, you are seen in the eyes of the state as a low/no risk, or one wouldn't have been awarded the permit.

So, someone please explain to me why standing in certain buildings/establishments I'm considered a low/no risk, but when I stand in other buildings/establishments I suddenly become more of a possible dangerous threat?

Why make an exception? Bars are dangerous places and those who are designated drivers or otherwise consume no alcohol should not be prevented from protecting themselves from morons. The non drinker who goes to see his friends play in a band is no more threat the general public than if he had been sitting in the parking lot the whole time.

Now being intoxicated and carrying is problem, but that is a behavior, not a place.

pmcdn wrote:

geekwagun wrote:Because everyone knows that the mere presence of a gun, even if it unseen, will cause people to be intimidated.

That could be the case anywhere in public. Right?

I believe a license to carry should be a license to carry anywhere (with the exception of bars). When a CHL applicant has had the thorough background check performed and then is awarded the permit, you are seen in the eyes of the state as a low/no risk, or one wouldn't have been awarded the permit.

So, someone please explain to me why standing in certain buildings/establishments I'm considered a low/no risk, but when I stand in other buildings/establishments I suddenly become more of a possible dangerous threat?

It's been said that the legislature (originally) restricted two type of places...
1) Places so good that nobody would possibly cause any mischief there (i.e., churches, amusement parks, etc.), and
2) Places so evil that just walking through the door would cause people to go into an instant rampage (i.e., bars, racetracks, etc.)

Jaguar wrote:

pmcdn wrote:

geekwagun wrote:Because everyone knows that the mere presence of a gun, even if it unseen, will cause people to be intimidated.

That could be the case anywhere in public. Right?

I believe a license to carry should be a license to carry anywhere (with the exception of bars). When a CHL applicant has had the thorough background check performed and then is awarded the permit, you are seen in the eyes of the state as a low/no risk, or one wouldn't have been awarded the permit.

So, someone please explain to me why standing in certain buildings/establishments I'm considered a low/no risk, but when I stand in other buildings/establishments I suddenly become more of a possible dangerous threat?

Why make an exception? Bars are dangerous places and those who are designated drivers or otherwise consume no alcohol should not be prevented from protecting themselves from morons. The non drinker who goes to see his friends play in a band is no more threat the general public than if he had been sitting in the parking lot the whole time.

Now being intoxicated and carrying is problem, but that is a behavior, not a place.

Agreed. I should be able to visit a bar armed if I am not drinking.

Any justifiable restriction on us would also apply to police when they're outside work. By not making 46.035 apply to police off duty, the lawmakers admitted they know there's no reason for those restrictions except kissing Sarah Brady's boot. The same applies to 46.03 restrictions on Texans.

rubio wrote:Any justifiable restriction on us would also apply to police when they're outside work. By not making 46.035 apply to police off duty, the lawmakers admitted they know there's no reason for those restrictions except kissing Sarah Brady's boot. The same applies to 46.03 restrictions on Texans.

I believe if off duty cops want to go have a drink, they aren't permitted to carry firearms into the bar.

pmcdn wrote:

rubio wrote:Any justifiable restriction on us would also apply to police when they're outside work. By not making 46.035 apply to police off duty, the lawmakers admitted they know there's no reason for those restrictions except kissing Sarah Brady's boot. The same applies to 46.03 restrictions on Texans.

I believe if off duty cops want to go have a drink, they aren't permitted to carry firearms into the bar.

Dept policy perhaps, not sure if that's "law" are they theoretically supposed to intervene even off duty to stop a felony, such as a bar getting robbed?