Scenario time

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Would you have carried in or not?

Yes. There may not have been a school sponsored activity going on in the zoo, and it was not posted.
26
58%
No. There may have been a school sponsored activity going on which would make CCW illegal.
0
No votes
Yes. Even if there was a school sponsored activity, how could I have known for sure.
16
36%
No. Why do you need a gun at the zoo. They're not going to let you hunt the animals.
1
2%
Yes. I have no way to secure my firearms in my car and would be afraid it would be stolen/broken into.
2
4%
No. BAAAAAAAAA!
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 45

User avatar
barres
Senior Member
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Prison City, Texas

Scenario time

Post by barres »

This situation presented itself to me last Friday. I want to see how you guys and gals would have handled yourselves.

I took my family to the Houston Zoo. The zoo is located pretty much in downtown Houston, in Hermann Park. The property is owned by the city of Houston, but the zoo is operated by Houston Zoo, Inc, a private entity.

As I neared the zoo, I noticed several school buses parked along the side of the street. We were rather close to the zoo, but not very far from the Children's Museum and the Museum of Natural History, too.

Approaching the zoo, I saw no 30.06 notices, nor did I see any evidence that the kids from the school buses were in the zoo. I was carrying my EDC and a back-up at the time (we were in downtown Houston).

Would you have carried into the zoo or secured your firearm(s)?
Remember, in a life-or-death situation, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Barre
User avatar
nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

Re: Scenario time

Post by nitrogen »

Yes.
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous
Kalrog
Senior Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Leander, TX
Contact:

Re: Scenario time

Post by Kalrog »

A school group being there at the same time you are there does not make you a participant in a school sponsored event.

And any 30.06 postings would be unenforceable as it is owned by a governmental entity.
45 4 life
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:09 pm
Location: Irving, TX

Re: Scenario time

Post by 45 4 life »

It also says intentionally or knowingly. Unless you are there with the school sponsored event you have no way of knowing. If I were part of the group I would ofcourse not be carrying.
Don't Confuse the Issues With the Facts
shootthesheet
Senior Member
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: Scenario time

Post by shootthesheet »

CHL holders are only restricted if the school has total control over the zoo. So, if the entire zoo is used as a school activity then we cannot enter. With this, we should have notice by the fact the people selling tickets won't let us in.

This is no different than if a schools sports team stops at the local "stop and rob" for after activity snacks. They do not control the building and we are in no wrong by shopping there at the same time.

The main point, in my limited understanding, is that the building or "fenced" area must be totally controlled by the school. Malls, Wal Marts, zoos, should not affect our ability to carry. That said, there are exceptions to where they post signs and that must be worked out by the legislature I guess.
http://gunrightsradio.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
pt145ss
Senior Member
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Scenario time

Post by pt145ss »

shootthesheet wrote:CHL holders are only restricted if the school has total control over the zoo. So, if the entire zoo is used as a school activity then we cannot enter. With this, we should have notice by the fact the people selling tickets won't let us in.

This is no different than if a schools sports team stops at the local "stop and rob" for after activity snacks. They do not control the building and we are in no wrong by shopping there at the same time.

The main point, in my limited understanding, is that the building or "fenced" area must be totally controlled by the school. Malls, Wal Marts, zoos, should not affect our ability to carry. That said, there are exceptions to where they post signs and that must be worked out by the legislature I guess.

I don't think I ever saw anything saying that the school sponsored had to be in complete control of the grounds or premises. I would look at it in the sense of knowing (or had reason to know) that a school sponsored event was going on at the place in question. I think “totally controlled� is not a well defined term. For example, My child has a school sponsored event like a lock down at Austin Park and Pizza…yes they are the only ones there at the park but are they in control of the park? I would think not. I would think that Austin Park and Pizza's employees are in control…no one else. So here is the scenario: I go to pick my child up from the lock down and I go inside…If I carry, am I in violation? I would think so…not because the school event has control of the facility but because I knew or had reason to know that a school sponsored event was taking place.

Another scenario: I take my family to the Bob bullock museum. I carry because I have no indication that I should not carry. Half way through the museum I see a bunch of kids walking in a group…it could be a school event…but then again…it might not be. Am I in violation? I would think not because I have no way of knowing if the kids I saw were a part of a school sponsored event or not.

To answer the OPs question…I most likely would carry as I have now way of knowing (nor had any reason to know) that there was a school sponsored event at the zoo.
bpet
Senior Member
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Scenario time

Post by bpet »

Yep. I'd of carried.

I don't believe that there is a law that I'd have broken (argue all you want, that's why there are lawyers) and zoo's are getting to be mighty dangerous places lately.

With recent evens, I'm not sure my 300 H&H might not be a better choice than my XD40 though. ;-)
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)
bdickens
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:36 am
Location: Houston

Re: Scenario time

Post by bdickens »

I've been mulling this over for some time now, and I think I know how to end all the confusion about can carry here, can't carry there, does this sign meet the requirements of the law, am I going to carry past a "gunbusters" sign or just take my business elsewhere, and all the other myriad confusions about CHL: GET RID OF 30.06! GET RID OF IT!

There is no reason for preventing a law-abiding citizen from going to a place that it is legal for him to be and engaging in lawful activity. None whatsoever. If you ask me it's Unconstitutional discrimination, pure and simple. If I can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed," and you can't put up a sign that says "No Jews Allowed," then no one should be able to put up a sign that says, in effect, "No CHLs Allowed."

No place that is open to the public should be able to keep CHLs out of their establishment. There should be only one place in the whole state that prohibits lawfully carried firearms, and that is a bar.
Byron Dickens
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Scenario time

Post by seamusTX »

bpet wrote:... zoo's are getting to be mighty dangerous places lately.

With recent evens, I'm not sure my 300 H&H might not be a better choice than my XD40 though. ;-)
Only if you're drunk and bait a large predator. ;-)
bdickens wrote:I've been mulling this over for some time now, and I think I know how to end all the confusion about can carry here, can't carry there, does this sign meet the requirements of the law, am I going to carry past a "gunbusters" sign or just take my business elsewhere, and all the other myriad confusions about CHL: GET RID OF 30.06!
We're talking about 46.03, not 30.06.

30.06 is not going to go away. Business owners are a more effective lobby than CHL holders and probably always will be.

On the subject of the post, the word "grounds" is not clearly defined. Clearly a sports stadium fits the definition. Clearly a five-square-mile park does not. When a law is vague, the benefit of the doubt must go to someone who is accused of violating it.

No CHL holder has ever been arrested for carrying in the vicinity of a school group in a public place, AFAIK, mainly because concealed means concealed.

- Jim
Penn
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: Scenario time

Post by Penn »

bdickens wrote:I've been mulling this over for some time now, and I think I know how to end all the confusion about can carry here, can't carry there, does this sign meet the requirements of the law, am I going to carry past a "gunbusters" sign or just take my business elsewhere, and all the other myriad confusions about CHL: GET RID OF 30.06! GET RID OF IT!

There is no reason for preventing a law-abiding citizen from going to a place that it is legal for him to be and engaging in lawful activity. None whatsoever. If you ask me it's Unconstitutional discrimination, pure and simple. If I can't put up a sign that says "No Blacks Allowed," and you can't put up a sign that says "No Jews Allowed," then no one should be able to put up a sign that says, in effect, "No CHLs Allowed."

No place that is open to the public should be able to keep CHLs out of their establishment. There should be only one place in the whole state that prohibits lawfully carried firearms, and that is a bar.
30.06 isn't the problem as seamus pointed out. It's the poorly worded law that doesn't specifically address the intent of the legislature as far as what "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted" means.

I think every business should have the right to ban weapons if they see fit, even if the only people who are going to listen are the law-abiding ones.
bpet
Senior Member
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Rowlett, Tx

Re: Scenario time

Post by bpet »

seamusTX wrote:
bpet wrote:... zoo's are getting to be mighty dangerous places lately.

With recent evens, I'm not sure my 300 H&H might not be a better choice than my XD40 though. ;-)
Only if you're drunk and bait a large predator. ;-)

Or unless you just happen to be at the Dallas zoo and the gorilla gets out. :woohoo
"Limit politicians to two terms. One in office and one in jail!" (Borrowed from an anonymous donor)
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Scenario time

Post by seamusTX »

You can get into places a gorilla can't. ;-)

- Jim
User avatar
jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Scenario time

Post by jimlongley »

Yup!
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: Scenario time

Post by seamusTX »

Now, chimps are a different matter. They're smaller than an an adult human being, agile, and strong enough to tear off your arm and beat you to death with it. :eek6

- Jim
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”