TexasCHLforum.com

Last night I went with my family to the trail of lights in Austin. The city was running buses from a downtown parking lot to Zilker park where the light displays are. It got me wondering, can a city restrict carry on a city bus? I didn't see any signs at all about concealed handguns anywhere but it did get me thinking. If I am remembering right anything that your tax dollars go to fund can't be restricted from chl carry (with the exception of secured areas at airports, court houses,etc.). Is this correct?


On a different note, when we got to the trail of lights there were thousands of people there. So many that it was hard to walk - in some places it was like one big mass moving along. I was amazed at how many people had their dogs with them. I'm not talking little dogs, although there were a lot of those being carried as well. I'm talking big dogs (including at least one pit bull). Now don't get me wrong, I love dogs. But bringing one to something like that seems like a bad idea. It would be like taking one to Disney Land. Is it just me??

You can carry on a city bus with a CHL.

Public transportation cannot restrict CHL holders. The relevant law is Local Government Code §229.001.

Your statement about "anything that your tax dollars go to fund" is, unfortunately, not the case. Schools are a prime example.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Public transportation cannot restrict CHL holders. The relevant law is Local Government Code §229.001.

Your statement about "anything that your tax dollars go to fund" is, unfortunately, not the case. Schools are a prime example.

- Jim

Public Schools do not restrict carry, legislature does. Public Schools cannot post enforceable 30.06 at the entrances to parking lots, for example.

Is the statement, "anything that your tax dollars go to fund can't be restricted from chl carry (with the exception of secured areas at airports, court houses,etc.)" true or false?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Is the statement, "anything that your tax dollars go to fund can't be restricted from chl carry (with the exception of secured areas at airports, court houses,etc.)" true or false?

- Jim

It is false Jim, because funding has nothing to do with it. Being owned or leased by a government entity is the requirement.

- Jim[/quote]

It is false Jim, because funding has nothing to do with it. Being owned or leased by a government entity is the requirement.[/quote]

I forgot about the school thing. So what would be an example of something that is funded by our tax dollars that is not owned or leased by the government where we could not legally carry (and I assume this is the state government and not the federal government)?

dwsUSA wrote:So what would be an example of something that is funded by our tax dollars that is not owned or leased by the government where we could not legally carry (and I assume this is the state government and not the federal government)?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Privately owned sports stadiums and race tracks with parimutuel betting often get subsidies from the government, and you can't carry there (when a professional game is in progress, in the case of stadiums). Many other private entities get state funds (nursing homes that get Medicaid, for example), and they can post 30.06 if they want.

- Jim

dwsUSA wrote:-
I forgot about the school thing. So what would be an example of something that is funded by our tax dollars that is not owned or leased by the government where we could not legally carry (and I assume this is the state government and not the federal government)?

I don't have an example, but the law does not mention funding by any source.

dwsUSA wrote:I forgot about the school thing. So what would be an example of something that is funded by our tax dollars that is not owned or leased by the government where we could not legally carry (and I assume this is the state government and not the federal government)?

One example would be the grants provided by the state, county or city governments to arts foundations and workplace training. They hold their activities in private property locations where they have the right to ban by 30.06, regardless of who is paying for the activity.

I know that you were thinking of things the government actually does, but many people forget about how many grants the governments give to private people or organizations (usually but not always non-profits). That idiot on the TV commercials is correct about there being lots more money give aways than people ever think about. And this does not even get into the concept of work the government is contracting out and paying for (such as the IBM facility that does the state IR contract work).

This is one reason the law reads government owned or leased, and does not mention funding.