TexasCHLforum.com

I disagree with their lawyer, but I agree that it is unclear and needs to be cleared up. One of the big arguments in favor of, and also against, their interpretation is that laws must be interpreted to mean something and make sense. As a general rule, courts cannot interpret a rule as nonsense or having no effect.

If you start with the 30.06 section of code, it bans LTCs from a posted location. It says this does not apply to government property unless the LTC would be banned under 46.03. It is important to note that 30.06 only applies to LTCs. The section in 46.03 says that an LTC cannot carry on any of several government property premises including in an open meeting. If we stop at that point, not only is the posting valid, but it is not needed since the LTC is simply banned from carrying there. But then we have section 46.15, which says specifically that the section of 46.03 under discussion does not apply to an LTC. That means you are not banned under 46.03 and therefor the section 30.06 notice is invalid.

But I have, by training and nature, the inclination to always interpret vague laws how they best suit me at that moment. And I make no claim that my interpretation will always be consistent since I apply it to the very specific case and situation. I honestly cannot claim their attorney is wrong for doing the same thing and interpreting it to best suit his needs at the time (which is probably to do what his boss wants).

One of my biggest arguments against the CAD's interpretation is that it renders meaningless the section of 46.15(b) that specifically says that the ban on carrying in open meetings does not apply. This would violate the rules on interpreting statutes that I mentioned above. One of the biggest arguments against my interpretation is that it renders the section of the law saying that 30.06 applies if mentioned in 46.03 meaningless. In both cases, it is not complete since the sections would still apply to other areas mentioned - the LTC could still carry at open meetings that are not posted and 30.06 would still apply at places like the area of an execution.

I think this is truly a case where some official interpretation is needed, either by the AG or by a court case. Right now, I think the AG's office would agree with you and me, but I cannot guarantee it.