Museum of Natural Science posted

[Penn]

As far as being on par with the 8.5 X 11 sign - It isn't. The law in your example states that the sign must have letters 1"high. The law in the situation we're talking about reads "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted". I'll ask you again if you can explain to me what this means?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is the exact wording dealing with school grounds:

§ 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.

[jimlongley]

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.

[Penn]

Here is the exact wording dealing with school grounds:

§ 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.

Okay - that sounds good. In my heart, I knew that is what "grounds" meant, but it didn't read that way to me.

[frankie_the_yankee]

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.

I think you basically have it right, and I agree with your conclusions (both the good ones and the bad ones).

[jimlongley]

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

I think you basically have it right, and I agree with your conclusions (both the good ones and the bad ones).

Thinking along the same line, suppose the LEO is one of those who regulalry shoots in IDPA, I know several, and is aware of the law, does he arrest, detain for investigation, or just tell the science teacher to forget it?

OTOH, the LEO is either nominally anti-CHL or just not up on that section of the law (we all have our own paradigms) and immediately arrests, then you have the chance to become a test case, or at least depend on the knowledge and political aspirations of the DA.

Of course the supposes could go on ad nauseum.

My head already hurt from this cold I'm suffering from, and I'm doing my taxes . . .

[nitrogen]

Just for the heck of it, I asked someone I know who is a local LEO near where I work, what he'd do in the situation described.

He basically said he'd ask the exposed CHLer to leave, walk out with him and say something to the effect of, "You're not in any trouble, I just wanted to to leave to diffuse the situation. You'd be within your rights to want to stay, but I'd ask you not to just because things could get complicated."

[tbranch]

YMMV. If you want to pick up your Big Mac and hit the road, by all means do so. I will not. I do not eat McDonald's burgers anyway. Whataburger for me, please. The Texas hamburger chain.

This goes right along with those who get the willies when seeing a 30.06 sign on 8x11 paper and believe they will be prosecuted because it was the intent of the bidness to be legal.

Anygun,

I'm not walking out either. I don't eat at McDonalds, I simply used it to make my point! Whataburger is good, but DQ is the Texas Stop Sign! Although it appears Sonic is taking over. Culvers?

Tom

[mgood]

Mmm, y'all made me hungry.
I'm going to McDonalds. I'm taking my pistol in case I'm assaulted in the parking lot. I will use the drive-through and remain in my vehicle, so the presence or absence of school children on a school sponsored activity won't matter. Then I'm going to come back and read the rest of this thread while I eat.
Just thought you might like to know.

[anygunanywhere]

YMMV. If you want to pick up your Big Mac and hit the road, by all means do so. I will not. I do not eat McDonald's burgers anyway. Whataburger for me, please. The Texas hamburger chain.

This goes right along with those who get the willies when seeing a 30.06 sign on 8x11 paper and believe they will be prosecuted because it was the intent of the bidness to be legal.

Anygun,

I'm not walking out either. I don't eat at McDonalds, I simply used it to make my point! Whataburger is good, but DQ is the Texas Stop Sign! Although it appears Sonic is taking over. Culvers?

Tom

DQ Beats McDonalds, hands down except for breakfast, but McDonalds in Canada do not have biscuits. There are DQs up here in Canada, and Papalote and me picked up a DQ vanilla shake today at lunch. I can dig a Sonic too, especially when I am jonesin' for a diet cherry lime-aid. Culvers is prime burger territory - butter burger! Mrs. Anygun and I hit the one in Kerrville near our property when we are there for a visit. We do get desert while we are there too.

Now. Where here in Edmonton am I going to go for supper......

Anygunanywhere

[mgood]

Just for the heck of it, I asked someone I know who is a local LEO near where I work, what he'd do in the situation described.

He basically said he'd ask the exposed CHLer to leave, walk out with him and say something to the effect of, "You're not in any trouble, I just wanted to to leave to diffuse the situation. You'd be within your rights to want to stay, but I'd ask you not to just because things could get complicated."

I am not a LEO, but I have known many.
I am not a lawyer. (But I played one in a mock trial in junior high. )

I was going to post something similar to nitrogen. I think that would be the response of most cops I know. They'd quietly ask the CHL to leave. Not force him to leave or arrest him, just more like "Please, make your life and mine easier and just go away."

[srothstein]

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.)

Charles, I have to disagree with you on this point. I do not agree that this applies only to school property. Since the phrase included the term "premises" of the school, and premises clearly does not include grounds by definition, then this must mean something else. I think it does mean property owned by someone other than the school where a school sponsored acticity is taking place. I also think it does not mean school property based on the "school sponsored" part. This, to me, implies a location other than the school or school owned property.

As for school's giving permission to carry on property other than their own, they certainly can. After all, they can restrict it on property other than their own, so they must be able to give it also. Consider how many organizations, including school districts, have a policy that says you may not carry a weapon while on any business-related activity at any location. So, the school district could write a policy that says an employee that has a CHL could carry while on school related business. This would meet the terms of the law as a policy from the institution. Of course, the location could still have a 30.06 sign which could override the school rule for that employee.

So, since reasonable people can disagree on the way this law is worded, I strongly suggest we work on this one for the next legislative section to get it clarified. Either get it changed to read the premises and grounds of an actual school, or take out the reference to school sponsored activity. And while we are at it, defining a school would be nice.

[mgood]

So, since reasonable people can disagree on the way this law is worded, I strongly suggest we work on this one for the next legislative section to get it clarified. Either get it changed to read the premises and grounds of an actual school, or take out the reference to school sponsored activity. And while we are at it, defining a school would be nice.

I think most of us agree that it would be even better to remove CHL restrictions from schools. But failing that, I agree with you.

[the head]

A quick update to this thread. We went today and there was not a sign coming in from the parking garage. I looked at the one side entrance where the big black "globe" is spinning and there was nothing there, either. I carried. After reading through the posts, I felt pretty good about it since it was a Saturday and I didn't see any school buses in sight.

[Bill]

YMMV. If you want to pick up your Big Mac and hit the road, by all means do so. I will not. I do not eat McDonald's burgers anyway. Whataburger for me, please. The Texas hamburger chain.

This goes right along with those who get the willies when seeing a 30.06 sign on 8x11 paper and believe they will be prosecuted because it was the intent of the bidness to be legal.

Anygun,

I'm not walking out either. I don't eat at McDonalds, I simply used it to make my point! Whataburger is good, but DQ is the Texas Stop Sign! Although it appears Sonic is taking over. Culvers?

Tom

DQ Beats McDonalds, hands down except for breakfast, but McDonalds in Canada do not have biscuits. There are DQs up here in Canada, and Papalote and me picked up a DQ vanilla shake today at lunch. I can dig a Sonic too, especially when I am jonesin' for a diet cherry lime-aid. Culvers is prime burger territory - butter burger! Mrs. Anygun and I hit the one in Kerrville near our property when we are there for a visit. We do get desert while we are there too.

Now. Where here in Edmonton am I going to go for supper......

Anygunanywhere

excuse me, not trying to hijack the thread but on Culvers. sundays to die for. Everytime going through Kerrville its a must stop