TexasCHLforum.com

One thing we did that was important this session is to prevent loss. It might be seen as a slight gain, or more likely revealing how much we have gained over the years, but there was no major attempt to reduce our gun rights this session.

Yes, there were some attempts, but I don't think anyone took them seriously. Well TSRA took them seriously enough to fight them and make sure they were not real problems, but you know what I mean.

Look at the fight in the US Senate. I was surprised at the outcome there because I expected to see that become a major House fight also. At least we did not have problems like that in our legislature, which is a gain in and of itself.

And yes, I am looking for the silver lining of an otherwise dismal (so far) session.

Jumping Frog wrote:The problem is, the way you are guys are interpreting it is a good commonsense way of interpreting legislative intent.

However, that is not what the language of the statute reads:

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, nor a spectator . . . .

The statute, as written, could even conceivably apply to someone sitting in McDonalds eating their lunch when a school bus carrying kids on a field trip pulls up and all the kids pile out and come inside to eat lunch. Now, I know that is not what the legislature intended, but a hostile DA could still prosecute under the statute language as written.

Charles made a very good point on why that could not possibly be the legal meaning of the statute. Obviously, a school cannot give permission to do something on property they do not own or control. And they do not own the McDonald's. But carry would be legal if the school had regulations permitting it according to the law. So the law must only refer to grounds and buildings the school owns that are not part of the legal definition of premises. For example, a football stadium would be neither premises or just grounds.

This was what convinced me that he was correct and I was wrong in my original interpretation, which matched yours.