TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

howdy wrote:Or it is as simple as the HISD Police not knowing the law, the Asst. DA not knowing the law, and the Tutor being arrested and charged. We had a Constable saying she was going to arrest a CHL holder at Church for being armed. She called the DA's office and THEY told her it was illegal for a CHL to carry in a place of worship. Even after I told her it was legal, showed her the law, she still said she was going to arrest and let the CHL work it out in court. We finally convinced her not to do it.

And how did this CHL come to a constable's attention?

I have the same question. Concealed is concealed.

Not a CHL issue since it was in her car, no mention if she has a CHL.

I still don't get it. If she was a tutor, she is under contract and even if she doesn't have a CHL and they try to trump MPA, there is a clause for allowing someone under contract, which all tutor's would be, to defeat the GFZA. Even if she was a teacher, HISD teachers are under contract.

GFZA does not apply:
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

What she was doing isn't against the law in either state or federal law. I hope she finds a decent attorney. Would be a great test case.

Doesn't seem like we are getting the full story from the media, surprised!

Not really sure how the knew the gun was locked up in the car.

RKirkwood wrote:

Not really sure how the knew the gun was locked up in the car.

Could be a number of things; tip from a mad ex, K9 unit hit on it, someone that knew she had a gun in the car could called it in stuff like that.

Deckeriv wrote:First off, the tutor can't be a felon. Anybody that is hired or works with kids at a school has a background check run.

I agree that she had a background check run, but hat does not mean she cannot still be a felon. To have a teacher's license you cannot be a felon, but if she reported the conviction and is working in a non-certified position, she could still be a felon. This is why I think the word tutor describing her position instead of teacher is important.

If the gun was in her car and the car was in the parking lot, then I don't see how they can convict under the law. The parking lot is not part of the premises and the MPA covers this. At least that is what I was taught in class.

That is also why I think the felon in possession law applies. Then it is still in her possession under the law. For all other laws, she has not committed a crime. In addition, if the gun was in the car, it was not found on or about her person, which is the wording of the carrying law.

JP171 wrote:ok Steve this is what ch 13 Houston had in its news story this is a direct quote with the emphasis being mine

"Kemp is to be charged with illegal possession of a weapon on campus. That's a third degree felony"

You could be right about the on campus part making it something other than what I said. One of the problems with news reporting is their inaccuracies, leading us to try to decide what is really going on. I focused on the possession part figuring they got that wording from something one of the cops actually said. It could be a simple case of, as someone else posted, the local department and school district not knowing or applying the law correctly. There are many cases of people trying to file charges on someone for having a gun in the trunk of their car and then finding it was not illegal. She could be fired for it, but not charged.

Snitches..... they make the world go round and in this case called 911 and got her arrested. Regardless of a conviction, she will probably be terminated and had to post bail which can be costly.

Keith B wrote:

jmra wrote:

Keith B wrote:This ought to be interesting. If they charged her under 46.02, then the charge is bogus as she was not on the premises. The only way they might have gotten her was if their employee handbook has valid 30.06 verbiage in it.

Did she have a CHL?

Doesn't matter. 46.02 is for premises. And MPA covers Texas law. Parking lot law exempts schools but still is not a violation of the law. The only thing they could possibly validly charge her with was violation of the GFSZA or violation of 30.06 (maybe, since it is a government entity and no test case.) Personally I think charges will end up getting dropped as they will find she was not in violation but she will have lost her job.

ScottDLS beat me to the punch.

I thought the parking lot law for workers specifically did not exempt schools?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

texanjoker wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jmra wrote:

Keith B wrote:This ought to be interesting. If they charged her under 46.02, then the charge is bogus as she was not on the premises. The only way they might have gotten her was if their employee handbook has valid 30.06 verbiage in it.

Did she have a CHL?

Doesn't matter. 46.02 is for premises. And MPA covers Texas law. Parking lot law exempts schools but still is not a violation of the law. The only thing they could possibly validly charge her with was violation of the GFSZA or violation of 30.06 (maybe, since it is a government entity and no test case.) Personally I think charges will end up getting dropped as they will find she was not in violation but she will have lost her job.

ScottDLS beat me to the punch.

I thought the parking lot law for workers specifically did not exempt schools?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It doesn't. But gun in car in parking lot is not a crime. All 82R did was tell employers (other than schools etc) they can't fire employees over gun in parking lot. It has not been a crime to have concealed handgun in car since MPA changes to PC 46.02

Schools ARE listed as an exception to the law (52.061) that keeps employers from prohibiting guns in their employees cars:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any
property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is
prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or
private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of
the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to
transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the
employee's duties;
(B) a school district;

A-R wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jmra wrote:

Keith B wrote:This ought to be interesting. If they charged her under 46.02, then the charge is bogus as she was not on the premises. The only way they might have gotten her was if their employee handbook has valid 30.06 verbiage in it.

Did she have a CHL?

Doesn't matter. 46.02 is for premises. And MPA covers Texas law. Parking lot law exempts schools but still is not a violation of the law. The only thing they could possibly validly charge her with was violation of the GFSZA or violation of 30.06 (maybe, since it is a government entity and no test case.) Personally I think charges will end up getting dropped as they will find she was not in violation but she will have lost her job.

ScottDLS beat me to the punch.

I thought the parking lot law for workers specifically did not exempt schools?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00321F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It doesn't. But gun in car in parking lot is not a crime. All 82R did was tell employers (other than schools etc) they can't fire employees over gun in parking lot. It has not been a crime to have concealed handgun in car since MPA changes to PC 46.02

Thanks that makes sense.

Sorry that I am late to the party but several folks have said and genuinely believe that a felony conviction prevents employment in a school district. In fact, it depends upon the nature of the felony. Violent criminal acts, yes, you are unemployable. On the other hand if the conviction was for a nonviolent crime, say bank fraud or something similar, then yes, it can be considered but it doesn't immediately preclude employment.

JP171 wrote:

Andrew wrote:Is it my imagination or has Dominique Sachse left behind pretty and developed into a genuinely beautiful woman?

ok Sir, Please put down the beer and whiskey, put your hands in the sleeves of this nice jacket, you'll feel much better soon

Songbird wrote:Schools ARE listed as an exception to the law (52.061) that keeps employers from prohibiting guns in their employees cars:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any
property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is
prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or
private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of
the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to
transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the
employee's duties;
(B) a school district;

Three pages of speculative bull finally someone posts the law rather than making an unqualified statement about the law, or what they "think" the law said... the rest of you should take a lesson from this post.

KaiserB wrote:

Songbird wrote:Schools ARE listed as an exception to the law (52.061) that keeps employers from prohibiting guns in their employees cars:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any
property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is
prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or
private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of
the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to
transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the
employee's duties;
(B) a school district;

Three pages of speculative bull finally someone posts the law rather than making an unqualified statement about the law, or what they "think" the law said... the rest of you should take a lesson from this post.

Not sure what your point is here Brian. It is still not illegal for her to have the gun in the car as long as she can legally posses it.

KaiserB wrote:

Songbird wrote:Schools ARE listed as an exception to the law (52.061) that keeps employers from prohibiting guns in their employees cars:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any
property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is
prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or
private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of
the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to
transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the
employee's duties;
(B) a school district;

Three pages of speculative bull finally someone posts the law rather than making an unqualified statement about the law, or what they "think" the law said... the rest of you should take a lesson from this post.

Not only are Songbird's posts very informative, she is also very polite - which is a lesson we can all take from her posts.