TexasCHLforum.com

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:This is an interesting situation that will have to be resolved by case law, if ever.

PC §46.035(b)(4) says that CHL holders cannot carry weapons in hospitals.

PC §46.035(i) says that hospitals are not off-limits unless posted with a 30.06 sign. This clause was added several years after 46.035 was originally passed into law.

PC §30.06(e) says

It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

My brain hurts.

- Jim

It's actually simple, like Steve explained: the CHL wouldn't be charged with PC 30.06 "Trespass by a license holder", but with PC 46.035 "Unlawful carry by a license holder".

PC 30.06(e) makes 30.06 inapplicable in government buildings. It doesn't affect 46.035.

Yep, thats why one of the reasons our recent Negligent Discharge case here at the GRB wasn't charged...

Whatya mean "I'm simple?"...You implying I ride the short bus Kevin???

Well from what I can see, the limitations or parameters a CHL instructor has in the required cirriculum may need to be adjusted to really plant a hardy seed of study in students who may or may not grasp the full idea behind the where you can, and can't go when you are carrying...

For the most part I feel comfortable knowing where those boundaries are...

Sometimes the discussions here do create a real emotional stance in some people...Bashing the people who instigate these types of signs and unilateral prohibitions is something that just happens...Maybe its better here, than not having a place to "reasonably" vent those frustrations with people we identify with...

Personally, (and I have suggested this in the past) I believe it would be a good thing to get a movement going to get the law amended to provide substantial penalties for those who incorrectly post prohibitive signage, either by where it is placed or by the wording used...

This state legislature has gone to great lengths to provide the uniform manner in which entities that can could post those signs correctly...Its about time to turn the tables on them again to get their act togather and do it right, or not do it at all...And if it continues, I am sure local and state governments would love the chance to create another mechanism to line the coffers...

And stop getting CHL'ers bowels in an uproar about this...I have always said this to anyone when these types of issues come up in conversation:

"Texas Concealed Handgun Licencees are not the problem!"

nitrogen wrote:I think it does.

CHLers arent allowed to carry weapons in school buildings, and that's what the sign says to me.

"On School Property" has always been, I guess one of those ambiguities that I believe have been evaluated to be physical structures like buildings and other facilities built up on "property" to house or conduct business, therefore off-limits to those of us who are licenced to carry in this state...

We all understand that part of the law...Yet the whole discussion of "premises" has been to determine that the parking lots are not a part of the exclusion of CHL'ers...

The wording in that sign pictured above is the epitamy of ignorance and misinterpretation of the law...Thats the way I see it...And its quite easy to see the seething attitude in that sign that is designed to create one of those "gun free zones" we hear about every other day or so...

"Whether you're licenced to carry or not"

Since they really don't need to post a sign prohibiting the carrying of a firearm inside their buildings, yet they post this sign which really doesn't mean a thing anyway...Tells me they spent money again on something that could have been spent better on educating the kids instead of scaring the heck out of them, and conditioning them to think a "sign" is going to somehow keep them safe...

Yep, I believe the actions of whomever thought this was a good idea to do is pathetic...Its not a hostile or disrespectful analysis on my part, but it is a personal opinion, and one that I feel very dissapointed in knowing there are people who are supposed to be educators first, instead of nanny-staters...