TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:OK, so you're sitting in your favorite burger joint, CHL and legal, and in walks the local school's science class to conduct a combination field trip and lunch out, both sponsored by the school. They are there primarily to evaluate the caloric and fat content of the food available and will do an assessment, back in the classroom, with the information gathered. They have secured, in advance, the cooperation of said burger joint.

One of the kids, being a little rambunctious and showing off for the girls, bumps into you and snags your jacket, pulling it aside enough to reveal your carry piece to the LEO who just came in for his lunch break.

Of course there is no real good way to determine that the class is there as a school sponsored activity to begin with, so let's inject a science teacher who is anti-CHL and who happens to know the law (the letter anyway, if not the intent) and that person also sees the gun and immediately starts to insist that you be arrested for the obvious violation of the letter of the law.

What does the LEO do? What should the LEO do? What is the spirit and intent of the law in a situation like this?

Gets real sticky now.

I believe the intent of the law is to prevent CHL holders from consciously going to school sponsored events while armed, which would include acting as a chaparone on the putative field trip (meeting at the school, etc, notwithstanding), or going to an away game at a non-school sporting venue (which happened a lot to my kids attending Catholic schools) or going along to the museum or zoo, just as an interested parent, or even visiting the finals of the science fair, held at a downtown meeting hall, not on school property.

I do not believe the intent of the law is to have every CHL holder immediately depart a facility, if they are armed, as soon as a school sponsored group arrives.

I also believe that the letter of the law reads differently and needs revision.

And I think the LEO in the above mentioned situation would be in a really tough position.

seamusTX wrote:I am also of the opinion that city-owned property cannot have a valid 30.06 posting. However, the real question is whether the Houston police would arrest and the Harris County DA would prosecute.

I'm inclined to think they would.