Search found 5 matches

by txinvestigator
Sat May 06, 2006 9:30 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Carrying at work when not allowed..
Replies: 31
Views: 5900

Kyle Brown wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
Kyle Brown wrote: I do not believe that a 30.06 sign posted at the enterance of a parking lot is effective notice to prohibit a person from leaving a gun in their car on said parking lot. This statute clearly states that a "license holder" has the meaning assigned by TPC 46.035(f).

Furthermore, TPC 46.035(f)(3) Unlawful Carrying Of Handgun By License Holder defines a premise as a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
A couple of important things here. First, the text of 46.035(f). Please pay attention to the part in bold:
(f) In this section:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Got it? The definition of "premises" in 46.035(f)(3) only applies in this section, meaning PC 46.035.

This is important because 46.035 (Unlawful carry of a handgun by a license holder) lists the places that are off limits by statute.

They are (paraphrased):
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a 51% TABC license;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital or nursing home;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

Those are the only places where "premises" is used in 46.035. Section 46.03 also uses the same definition. These are the only places in the entire Penal Code where the definition used in 46.035(f)(3) can be applied. It simply doesn't apply in arguments about trespassing and 30.06.

Kevin
Gosh Kevin, the word "only" is very big...Your response brings to mind several questions but let me start with two if you have time..

First, where would I find the definition of "persons" and "premises" as used in GC 411.204 wherein employers may prohibit persons who are licensed under this chapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the "premises" of the business.

Second, I suppose you realize that PC 30.06 defines "license holder" defined in PC 46.035(f) which is exactly where "premise" is defined.

Thanks for your patience.

Kyle
If the code does not specify a definition, then the common or dictionary defintion is used.

As to your second question, 30.06 refers to the defintion of license holder as in 46.035. It does not refer to the 46.035 definition of premises; therefore, it does not use that definition.
by txinvestigator
Fri May 05, 2006 8:20 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Carrying at work when not allowed..
Replies: 31
Views: 5900

The definition of premises that does not include only covers places listed in 46.03 and 46.035.

A private business NOT listed under 46.03 and 46.035 can post at parking lot entrances and legally prohibit carry there.

KBCraig 'splained it much better than I.
by txinvestigator
Thu May 04, 2006 6:54 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Carrying at work when not allowed..
Replies: 31
Views: 5900

Re: parking lots posted???

switch wrote:I am not sure that a 30.06 sign would cover the parking lot. ;-)
The do if they are posted at the entrances.


The test asks "business premises does not include parking lots, playgrounds or exterior walkways."
If you are referring to the CHL test, it refers to locations listed as prohibited under PC 46.03 and 46.035. Private businesses CAN make parking lots prohibited.

If I own a business (hey, I DO own a business) I set whatever policies I wish, within law. Employees know the policies when the agree to work for me. If they violate those, regardless of how silly they believe them to be, I WILL fire the employee. If that policy violation is also a violation of state law, I WILL file criminal charges.

I pay a fair wage; the person agrees to work for that pay within my guidlines. If he takes my money and does not operate within my guidlines, as far as I am concerned he is stealing his paycheck from me.

IMHO, if a person has a such a problem with his employers policies that he just cannot abide, then that employee has a moral obligation to cease working there.
by txinvestigator
Tue May 02, 2006 4:34 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Carrying at work when not allowed..
Replies: 31
Views: 5900

ElGato wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.
Heeheehee. Right on the money there!
We know that lady don't we TX, Charles is kind enough to listen to my rants about her and her interpretations.
Ms "democrat I don't like guns driving my hippy VW beetle" attorney. ;)
by txinvestigator
Tue May 02, 2006 1:07 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Carrying at work when not allowed..
Replies: 31
Views: 5900

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I can see how your instructor might believe this, but this is incorrect. I also suspect that a certain DPS attorney who believes "close is good enough" when it comes to the wording of a 30.06 sign might have expressed such an opinion in the instructor's school, but this is mere speculation on my part.
Heeheehee. Right on the money there!

Return to “Carrying at work when not allowed..”