TexasCHLforum.com

I didn't think posting in a parking lot (assuming it's open, like a mall parking lot) was legal?

Nope, you can't carry past a legal sign. That's how they get around the "premises" issue.

I would guess that you could have it in the vehicle under the traveling law, but it would have to stay in the car when you got out. 30.06 only pertains when you're carrying under the CHL.

The statutory definition of "premises" only applies to locations that are statutorily off-limits, not to private property.

Your question would be great for a law school exam and I don't believe there is a clear answer. However, we must remember that trespass under TPC 30.05 does not require any special language or sign in order to prosecute. One question would be whether or not a 30.06 sign is sufficient "notice" to prosecute under TPC §30.05. Also problematic is the fact that TPC §30.05(f) makes §30.05 inapplicable to CHLs, if the reason for exclusion is solely the presence of a handgun. This exception isn't limited to CHLs carrying under the authority of their license.

So the issue is going to be whether a CHL can in essence "disavow" their CHL status by claiming they aren't carrying under the authority of their CHL, thus making §30.06 unavailable to the property owner, then turn around and argue that he/she can't be prosecuted under §30.05 either. There is an old saying in law, "you can't use a privilege or immunity as both a shield and a sword." That is precisely what this fact pattern would be doing and I can't see an appellate court leaving a landowner without remedy in this situation.

Excellent question!

Chas.

It would seem that the underlying question of whether any ordinary (non-CHL)citizen could carry is critical. The reason I say this is that the CHL was intended to grant extra privileges, not cause even more restriction as a result of the CHL status. Following that logic, if an ordinary citizen can carry then the CHL holder should have no greater restrictions that the non-CHL citizen.

Charles' point about 30.05 (f) making the satute inapplicable if the posession of a lawfully possessed handgun (not just CHL'S) is the sole reason for exclusion is very interesting.

I certainly will not be a candidate for volunteer test case status.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, we must remember that trespass under TPC 30.05 does not require any special language or sign in order to prosecute.

If they enter your vehicle without your consent, it appears they're trespassing.

I was just going to ask this question, as I ended up having an interview for a 2nd job at a place with posted parking lots.

I will not be accepting the job due to this, but I was just curious. I ended up locking my weapon in my center-of-mass box after parking, and leaving it there until I left the premises.