TexasCHLforum.com

E10 wrote:

Andrew wrote:Is it my imagination or has Dominique Sachse left behind pretty and developed into a genuinely beautiful woman?

She really oughtn't wear that dress on TV. I didn't hear a word she said. Somebody tell me how to run the first 15 seconds of the video in a continuous loop.

I leave my handgun in a lockbox in my truck when I visit my son's school. This is why I always park on the street.

philip964 wrote:Mainstream media is at least putting out half hearted stories on the dismissal.

http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-n ... 24031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, here in this case, she is released because of lack of evidence, rather than she never broke the law in the first place.

It is interesting how the news can be slightly slanted to an anti gun liberal bias just with a few words. The press here in Houston is not our friends.

The district attorney’s office said it’s not clear whether her car was even on school property, so the charges were dropped.

n5wd wrote:

gdanaher wrote:After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here? Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

The vast majority of districts in the state use the model board policies that are published by the TEA. In those models there is a provision that employees may not bring a weapon onto the premises, with all the standard verbage. So, it's safe to say that all (or almost all) districts have such policies.

Now, whether most districts have added policies prohibiting weapons in cars, I have no idea. I know that my district does not.

gdanaher wrote:So, presuming that she had a chl, and presuming the firearm never left the locked trunk of her car, she had violated no state laws. If the HISD had a written policy that specified an employee could be terminated for possession of a firearm in a vehicle, in a parking lot, then her resignation in lieu of firing would be expected, however if the district has no written policy, would their demand for her resignation be unreasonable and hence they would need to offer the job back to her because she failed to violate any written policy?

RottenApple wrote:

KaiserB wrote:What many are overlooking is the fact that Texas (the State) has a Weapon Free Zone law for schools

§ 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE
SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the
punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is
increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest
category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the
trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place
that the actor knew was:
(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or
(2) on premises where:
(A) an official school function is taking place;
or
(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the
University Interscholastic League is taking place.
(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section
46.03(a)(1).
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises"
have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety
Code.
(2) "School" means a private or public elementary or
secondary school.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 320, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1063, § 10, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to only be a penalty enhancement for someone who commits a crime within 300ft of a school and not a charge in and of itself.

texanjoker wrote:I am reading the case file via the court website and it appears to have been dismissed. $5000 initial bail aka paying a bail bondsman 10% is still a loss of $500 for this. The affidavit also was as I described above, stating in a building. I wonder why the media didn't share that? Seems strange.

KaiserB wrote:
Since MPA does not apply to school district employees; that would leave this person as a school employee (contracted or otherwise) subject to the restrictions in 46.03 (a)(1)

Scroll down a bit in your reading and you will find penalties in PC 46.03 are listed in paragraph (g)

KaiserB wrote:

Songbird wrote:Schools ARE listed as an exception to the law (52.061) that keeps employers from prohibiting guns in their employees cars:

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(1) authorize a person who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully
possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any
property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is
prohibited by state or federal law; or
(2) apply to:
(A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or
private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of
the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to
transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the
employee's duties;
(B) a school district;

Three pages of speculative bull finally someone posts the law rather than making an unqualified statement about the law, or what they "think" the law said... the rest of you should take a lesson from this post.

jmra wrote:

Keith B wrote:This ought to be interesting. If they charged her under 46.02, then the charge is bogus as she was not on the premises. The only way they might have gotten her was if their employee handbook has valid 30.06 verbiage in it.

Did she have a CHL?

Teamless wrote:

psijac wrote:shouldnt she be protected under the motorist protection act?

or the parking lot law (or whatever it is called)

psijac wrote:shouldnt she be protected under the motorist protection act?