TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Glockster wrote:Wouldn't this be the same though as any private property where the owner can post a 30.06? Or are you just suggesting that they have the wrong signage up?

Well..... let me emphasize that I am not a lawyer, I have not played on on TV, nor have I spent the night at a Motel Six. But........ 46.035(f)(3) clearly states that

""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

There are two parts to that - the inclusive part which describes what a premises IS, and the exclusionary part which explains what a premises IS NOT. A privately owned lake is NOT a building or part of a building, NOR is it a parking lot, public walkway, an amusement park or a school or a hospital, etc., etc. So far as I can tell - and I am perfectly willing to have my error pointed out to me if I am wrong - 30.06 cannot apply to something that is not a premises of something, and "premises" doesn't include "lakes" in its definition.

That is why I am suggesting that the 30.06 sign may be meaningless in this context. However, I find it very easy to believe that licensed carry can be banned from the lake under other justification, such as it being part of a nuclear power plant. In other words, the 30.06 sign is just chaff. The REAL reason you can't carry there is because you can't carry a gun into a nuclear power plant.....or its cooling pond.....because they are critical infrastructure.

the problem I see with your belief TAM is that 30.06 doesn't say a single thing about premises, it states PROPERTY! so I have to disagree with your interpretation and say they can in fact post the property and enforce it

Glockster wrote:Following what you're saying, and given that if correct, how should private property be properly posted to prohibit bringing a gun onto the property within which the reservoir is located? That's disregarding whether or not the reservoir is part of that critical infrastructure (since they let folks boat there, my guess is that it isn't that classification).

JP171 wrote:the problem I see with your belief TAM is that 30.06 doesn't say a single thing about premises, it states PROPERTY! so I have to disagree with your interpretation and say they can in fact post the property and enforce it

Well, like I said above:

.....and I am perfectly willing to have my error pointed out to me if I am wrong......

So maybe I am wrong. I was just explaining my understanding of things. It could be wrong.

Glockster wrote:
Following what you're saying, and given that if correct, how should private property be properly posted to prohibit bringing a gun onto the property within which the reservoir is located? That's disregarding whether or not the reservoir is part of that critical infrastructure (since they let folks boat there, my guess is that it isn't that classification).

I'd consider it critical infrastructure. it's enclosed by fence, they even charge admission to boat there
but even with no admission charge to boat there, many lakes have boating but a portion surrounding a water intake might be "critical infrastructure"

(C) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, electrical control center, or electrical transmission or distribution facility;

(D) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;

I've thought about this critical infrastructure business for years, Lake Buchanan had great fishing areas near an electrical plant and areas of the Dam closed after 9/11 there used to be some great fishing areas in Winter around electrical plant cooling area waters AND around "water intake structures" where water is moving on some lakes there's water intakes ( Even on many lakes, there are water intake structures whether for drinking water electrical cooling water etc they are all water intake structures though not for electrical cooling/ nuclear plant meltdown... they could be potential terrorist targets, which I believe was purpose/legislative intent of this legislation)
I doubt anyone would ever be stopped on huge public waterways/lakes... but Squaw Creek Reservoir, with it's fenced off property, I'd consider critical infrastructure

below are photos of other water intake structures on other lakes



I could be wrong, as could whoever decided to enforce it, and a Court might have to clarify.
Just seems at that location if 30.06 don't get yo, 30.05 might and critical infrastructure or something else... probably some Federal Terrorism charge I know nuthin' about.