TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There's no Texas law that prohibits having firearms in a car on school grounds, as long as you're not doing something else that's illegal.

How about UCW for handguns, Texas Penal Code 46.02?

Under the current law, you're presumed to be traveling, and thus exempt, unless the weapon is in plain view, you are committing another crime, and certain other circumstances.

I also wonder about prosecuting someone for UCW when the weapon is in the car and the owner/driver is not. Obviously the weapon had to get there somehow; but the person does not have a weapon on or about one's person when the person is outside the car and it is locked.

Texas law cannot make something legal that is illegal under federal law (like medical marijuana, for example).

Of course they can. The Feds can still prosecute the federal violation though.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the state cannot relieve someone of federal prosecution.

- Jim

pbandjelly wrote:[ Also, is it still UCW if the gun is locked in the trunk?

No

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

seamusTX wrote:There's no Texas law that prohibits having firearms in a car on school grounds, as long as you're not doing something else that's illegal.

How about UCW for handguns, Texas Penal Code 46.02?

Under the current law, you're presumed to be traveling, and thus exempt, unless the weapon is in plain view, you are committing another crime, and certain other circumstances.

Agreed, IF she met the presumption. However, you wrote that there was no law prohibiting carry on school grounds, and I knew what you meant, but others less familiar with Texas law might not. Just erring on the side of caution.

txinvestigator wrote:Agreed, IF she met the presumption. However, you wrote that there was no law prohibiting carry on school grounds, and I knew what you meant, but others less familiar with Texas law might not. Just erring on the side of caution.

I previously wrote:There's no Texas law that prohibits having firearms in a car on school grounds, as long as you're not doing something else that's illegal.

I can see that the casual lurker might think that I meant anyone could possess a handgun on school grounds.

That is illegal for a non-CHL holder who is not in a privately owned motor vehicle, etc., because that is unlawfully carrying weapons.

- Jim

Kalrog wrote:Did anybody else grab on to the fact that this was a PRIVATE canine service? How does that impact the potential prosecution (persecution)? Seems a bit fishy here...

I caught that, and I don't care for it, but in this particular case it wouldn't affect the prosecution at all.

If the story was reported correctly, after the dog alerted on the car, the handler could see the grip of the handgun partially protruding from between the rear seat cushions. And then, the teacher gave permission to search.

So, probable cause wouldn't apply for two reasons.

KBCraig wrote:If the story was reported correctly, after the dog alerted on the car, the handler could see the grip of the handgun partially protruding from between the rear seat cushions. And then, the teacher gave permission to search.

So, probable cause wouldn't apply for two reasons.

This stinks. It doesn't sound like it was her gun, probably not her pot either. Sounds like someone she gave a ride to.

I had a company car for about 6 months before I found a mostly smoked joint. I was just glad it was me that found it.

txinvestigator wrote:
Agreed, IF she met the presumption. However, you wrote that there was no law prohibiting carry on school grounds, and I knew what you meant, but others less familiar with Texas law might not. Just erring on the side of caution.
"I previously wrote:
'There's no Texas law that prohibits having firearms in a car on school grounds, as long as you're not doing something else that's illegal.'

I can see that the casual lurker might think that I meant anyone could possess a handgun on school grounds.

That is illegal for a non-CHL holder who is not in a privately owned motor vehicle, etc., because that is unlawfully carrying weapons."



So to go back to my original question, if a non CHL holder has a handgun in their car after September 1 on school grounds, you still will be in violation of Federal and Texas laws prohibiting guns in schools despite House Bill 1815, correct?

I also assume that 1815 doesn't trump 46.03. Is that right?

PC §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):
(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;

stroo,

I have some of the same questions as my wife is a school teacher.

However, the definition of premises in 46.03 does not include parking lots IIRC.

Therefore, IMO, the question is: Is a non-CHL holder with a firearm in their vehicle in a school parking lot in violation of any state or federal laws?

I would like for my wife to obtain her CHL but, barring that, it would be nice to know that she could have a weapon in her car for the drive home.

Has anyone reconciled the federal and state laws on this issue in light of the newly passed legislation?

Thanks,

Nazrat wrote:Is a non-CHL holder with a firearm in their vehicle in a school parking lot in violation of any state or federal laws?

In my non-lawyer opinion, it would be legal under Texas law if the handgun were not in plain view.

Long guns are already allowed, and they don't have to be concealed.

Carrying any loaded or unlocked weapon would be a violation of the federal law. Only a CHL from a state that performs background checks gets you out of the federal law.

However, I have read about only one prosecution for the federal offense, and that was a criminal who went into a school with a handgun.

- Jim

stroo wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Agreed, IF she met the presumption. However, you wrote that there was no law prohibiting carry on school grounds, and I knew what you meant, but others less familiar with Texas law might not. Just erring on the side of caution.

"I previously wrote:
'There's no Texas law that prohibits having firearms in a car on school grounds, as long as you're not doing something else that's illegal.'

I can see that the casual lurker might think that I meant anyone could possess a handgun on school grounds.

That is illegal for a non-CHL holder who is not in a privately owned motor vehicle, etc., because that is unlawfully carrying weapons."

So to go back to my original question, if a non CHL holder has a handgun in their car after September 1 on school grounds, you still will be in violation of Federal and Texas laws prohibiting guns in schools despite House Bill 1815, correct?

I also assume that 1815 doesn't trump 46.03. Is that right?

PC §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):
(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;

Laws don't trump other laws.

If you read more of 46.03 you will see that premises does not include parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, etc.


After Sept 1 of this year, you are correct.

TXI,

As a lawyer, I am fully aware that some laws do sometimes, in the vernacular, "trump" other laws. As a nonlawyer, you may not realize that.
For example, the Constitution trumps statutes, statutes trump regulations etc. Now I could put it in more legalase but the effect is the same. And sometimes on their face, one statute will state that it controls over another statute under XYZ conditions, i.e. trumps it.

stroo wrote:TXI,

As a lawyer, I am fully aware that some laws do sometimes, in the vernacular, "trump" other laws. As a nonlawyer, you may not realize that.
For example, the Constitution trumps statutes, statutes trump regulations etc. Now I could put it in more legalase but the effect is the same. And sometimes on their face, one statute will state that it controls over another statute under XYZ conditions, i.e. trumps it.

I would be interested in an example of a state law which "trumps" another state law. I certainly don't want to be giving bad information.

And if I am not mistaken, the Constitution does not "trump" statutes. A law can be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, but unless and until so it is enforceable.??

I guess you lawyering didn't point you to the definition of "premises' in 46.03.

As another lawyer, I believe stroo is referring, in part, to the doctrine of federal preemption. ERISA is a good example of federal preeemption in which the federal law overrides any state law.

Leaving the pissing contest aside, let's focus on a non-CHL holder with a weapon in their vehicle in a school parking lot on 090107. Are they in violation of any laws that will cause them to be arrested or cited?

Nazrat wrote: let's focus on a non-CHL holder with a weapon in their vehicle in a school parking lot on 090107. Are they in violation of any laws that will cause them to be arrested or cited?

If the 1000 foot "Free fire zone" around the schools is still in effect, maybe.
The niche to shoot for, imo, would be that the "castle doctrine" law in effect for Texas would have the same affect as a CHL while in their vehicle.
Since, the law makes an exception for car carry, and the conditions for car carry are in line with CHL requirements. With the exception of course for the class and fees.
Please excuse the run-on thinking.