TexasCHLforum.com

I need a little clarification.

46.03 (a)(1) prohibits carrying a weapon "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..."

In the stickies for prohibited places, Charles summarizes this as "School grounds where a school sponsored activity is on-going"

However, I have seen other threads in which people interpret the statute as meaning any building in the state, as long as there is a school sponsored field trip or the like present (i.e. a museum)

The wording of the statute seems a little vague. Does it mean buildings on school grounds or any building in the state. Is there any case law?

The only problem with school activities not being held on school grounds is, how would anyone know (particularly in advance) that a school activity was taking place there? You turn the corner in a museum, and there's Ms. Apple's third grade class on a field trip.

I don't have a real answer, but this was the easiest way to watch to see what other people say. Tagged for future reference.

I have always taken this to mean grounds and buildings other than those owned by the school IF there is a school sponsored activity going on. I also note that there is a requirement for the behavior to be at recklessly. This means that you should have known that there would be school activities there.

Here is the logic I use. One of the principles of code construction is that all phrases mean something in any law. The law forbids the premises of a school. This includes the buildings but specifically excludes the grounds. So, it is OK to carry on the grounds of a school. Now we have a clause that says "any grounds or building" where a school sponsored activity is taking place. This cannot possibly be referring to school buildings since they are already off limits. Since it cannot refer to school buildings, I am going to conclude it cannot refer to school grounds since the phrase is tied together with the buildings AND because grounds were specifically made legal already. Therefore, it means places like a zoo, museum, or a mall where the school choir is putting on a show.

But it only means them if you knowingly or recklessly carry there while the activity is taking place. When should you know (the recklessly part is should have known) something is taking place? When there is an obvious sign of it, such as school buses parked by the gate or a sign advertising elementary school day at the Stock Show, as two possible examples. If there are no signs of school activities, and you had no knowledge of it, then there could be school sponsored activities and you would not be committing a crime.

As for the part about in the school parking lot when there is something going on, like band practice, I think it is not covered. I think it is exempted specifically by the definition of premises. It is only reasonable to assume a school would have activities in their own parking lot, so the exemption must have been intended to cover this.

But, as was pointed out in the thread about the real experts, I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one on TV. Charles is the best lawyer we have on the forum and he will be quick to point out that this is all conjecture until someone fights it through at least the appeals level or the legislature cleans up the language (think traveling exception and 130 years). This is just my opinion, my thought process, and the way I interpret it. I am well known for always taking things the best way for me when they are left to my interpretation. Courts have been known to disagree with me on more than one occasion, and agree sometimes too. My advice is worth exactly what you just paid for it, as is all advice on the internet.

I think we are over thinking this one. There's no case law because as far as anyone knows no one has been charged (whether via state or federal law) with unlawful carry in one of these hypothetical "floating" school zones.

The most likely reason for this is that both cops and CHL's have too much good sense for this to be a problem. I would follow their example.