TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Arres ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

shouldnt she be protected under the motorist protection act?

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.

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?

MPA doesn't apply to schools as you would be violating the Gun Free School Zone Act.

Keith B wrote:The only way they might have gotten her was if their employee handbook has valid 30.06 verbiage in it.

Doesn't the parking lot law give her the right to keep it in her car

Teamless wrote:

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

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

Parking lot law does not have an exemption for school parking lots.

I work at a school. I can't tell you how many people I have heard talk about having a gun in their car 24/7. You should see how big their eyes get when I tell them they are breaking federal law not to mention the employee handbook by having it on school property. Of course none of them have a CHL.

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?

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.

And the 30.06 verbiage would be invalid because HISD is a government agency. The Federal GFSZA doesn't come into play unless it was the Feds that arrested her, which I doubt. And if she had a CHL then that wouldn't apply either. MPA protects her from a 46.02 charge.

HISD can fire her, but I don't see how a state criminal charge will stick unless there's more we don't know...or if she has a bad lawyer. The article says she's charged with a 3rd degree felony, which would be under 46.03. Problem is the definition of "premises" doesn't include parking lot.

I believe that I could regularly leave a gun in my car when I visit my daughters' school or have it in the glove box when I pick them up and I wouldn't be breaking the law. Whether I do or not, you'll just have to guess.

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?

Doesn't matter. 46.02 is for premises. And MPA covers Texas law. Parking lot law exempts schools but still is not a violation of the law. The only thing they could possibly validly charge her with was violation of the GFSZA or violation of 30.06 (maybe, since it is a government entity and no test case.) Personally I think charges will end up getting dropped as they will find she was not in violation but she will have lost her job.

ScottDLS beat me to the punch.

Color me ignorant, but why can't local police enforce GFSZ?

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

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

ok Sir, Please put down the beer and whiskey, put your hands in the sleeves of this nice jacket, you'll feel much better soon