Far more eloquent, but as I said, muddies the waters!srothstein wrote:JP171,
Unless I misunderstand your post, I think we are all in agreement (well, you, me, and the others you mentioned) on the difference between the sign being posted being enough and the sign actually having been seen. The law says the sign must be conspicuously posted and the court will use the reasonable man test. But, if you did not see the sign because you were distracted or sleepy or some similar reason, you will be found guilty if the reasonable man would have seen the sign.
Sugar Land Dave (and others concerned with teaching hospitals),
I just wanted to point out that this is just conventional wisdom and not the law. The law does not mention a teaching hospital as off-limits other than as a hospital. The legal problem is that the law does not adequately define what is a school. Is a teaching hospital a school or not under the law? In this forum, we cannot all agree on exactly what is a school. I think most administrators of a teaching hospital would claim it as a school, for several reasons (taxes and guns being just two). I also am confident that most of us would not see most teaching hospitals as schools, unless they were directly affiliated with the university that ran them.
One confusing example might be the VA hospital in San Antonio. Last time i was down in that area, the University of Texas had an agreement with the county hospital system to use the county hospital for part of its teaching duties. They even renamed the hospital to University Hospital (though it is owned and operated by the county). But the hospital also had an agreement with the VA hospital across the street to jointly provide services. There was even a tunnel under the street to connect the two hospitals. Many of the student doctors and nurses pulled shifts in the VA hospital. I don't think any court would consider the VA hospital a school, and I am not even sure they would the county hospital, despite its name. But I would not want to bet on it and I would stay clear of the VA hospital since it is federal anyway.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Does this meet the legal requirements ?”
- Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:27 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3273
Re: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
- Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:45 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3273
Re: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
Medical facilities are only off-limits if they are 30.06 posted.
If they are a teaching facility, that muddies the waters.
If they are a teaching facility, that muddies the waters.
- Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:25 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
- Replies: 28
- Views: 3273
Re: Does this meet the legal requirements ?
I thought the old sign was identical to the current, but instead of "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" it had the reference to 4413(29ee).jimlongley wrote:
That is the old sign, and does not meet the statutory requirements.
(Such as the one at Grapevine Mills Mall. Attached below.)
The sign in the picture isn't even close to that!