TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is the exact wording dealing with school grounds:

TPC §46.03(a) wrote:§ 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, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or
  educational institution, whether the school or educational
  institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written
  regulations or written authorization of the institution;

You cannot take short phrases or sentences from a statute and try to interpret them out of context without risking an inaccurate conclusion. No, the statute doesn't say "school grounds" but the entirety of TPC§46.03(a) clearly deals with school property. It covers buildings, grounds (real estate outside of buildings) and school buses. A phrase often missed is the closing phrase unless pursuant to written regulations or authorization of the institution. A school could not authorize you to carry in or on property it doesn't own. (Note, TPC §46.03(a) applies to everyone and all firearms, not just CHLs and handguns.)

One rule of statutory construction is that you must read everything in context. Another rule is that you must try to read the statute such that there are no internal conflicts between the statute's provisions. A broad interpretation of "grounds" to include property the school doesn't own would be in conflict with the provision regarding written authorization. The only way to reconcile this conflict is to read "grounds" in context and interpret it to include only school grounds.

I did a very quick case law search and didn't find anything on the scope the term "grounds." This was a very quick search, not an exhaustive one, so don't rely upon it!!

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Penn wrote:I don't see your comparison of an interstate to an actual bldg, but whatever. If the kids are eating lunch while on a school sponsored field trip - the school is responsible for their well-being. They are there, because the school agreed to take them there. They are there as a group. Hence - the lunch is school-sponsored.

Respectfully, sir, I beg to differ with you.

There are a number of instances on this board where extreme examples of scenarios have been used to support positions on issues.

The McDonald's lunch is one of them and I countered with my interstate scenario.

Respectfully. my counter was an attempt to illustrate the absurdity of your scenario.

I thought it was pretty creative, actually!

If we continue to use extreme examples to support our positions it will detract from one of the main goals of this board and that is to educatethose who want to learn.

To contend that if you are sitting in McDonald's and in troops a bunch of third graders on a field trip and insist that any CHLer eating there at the time is in violation of the law is absurd.

If you hold to your opinion you are free to do so and consider yourself in violation of the law, but it is not right to do so in an attempt to educate others with absurd information.

Respectfully,

Anygunanywhere