Museum of Natural Science posted

[Liberty]

You're probably right. However, the 30.06s do exist on government property and arrest is likely. Your acquittal is also likely. At the same time, a suspended CHL, a happy lawyer and a gaping hole in your bank account is almost a sure thing.

I don't want to be the one to test this.

Except that if the handgun is concealed its very unlikely that one would get arrested. I also believe its very unlikely to get prosecuted if someone to be arrested.
In this case the signs are not even posted at every entrance. I went to the the museum a few weeks ago, was carrying and I didn't see any sign restricting me. I went through the entrance from the parking garage.

[DoubleActionCHL]

For one to be arrested, one must make known the fact that he or she is armed. If you are concealing, you won't be arrested. My reference to being arrested has to do with making the organization aware that you are packing. I don't think the officer will make the distinction between a 30.06 on private property and a city owned facility.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So I guess the question is, "If a private organization is leasing, borrowing or otherwise has permission to use city property, do they have the right to post a 30.06 during their period of use?"

That has been discussed endlessly here on the forum. With one or two exceptions, everyone agrees that leasing it doesn't matter: the law says that if a piece of property is owned by the city, 30.06 is not valid. Period.

Has anyone actually contacted DPS for qualification?

This falls under the same conditions, in my opinion, of the 30.06 posted at gun shows held at a city-owned facility. It has been argued that those ARE legitimate. I'm not seeing the difference.

DPS can't answer this question; it's not a regulatory matter.

Chas.

[cxm]

I don't think such postings are legal... BUT, that does not mean you might not be arrested...

We had a problem in Ft. Worth with gun shows at Will Rogers arena being posted by the show promoter who leases city owned property.

I objected, and was told by a (clueless FWPD Sgt. that the legislature changed the law in 2005 to allow that...DUH.)

Anyway I wrote to the Ft. Worth City attorney complaining about the violation of the law and offering to seek a writ of Mandamus to stop the violation.

I did not get a reply, but the past three shows I have attended were not posted.

Bottom line to me anyway, If you think the posting is illegal write a polite letter to the Houston City attorney and object to the illegal posting and ask it be removed and offer to seek legal action to have it removed if necessary.

Our arguing back and forth proves nothing... but the law provides a vehicle to resolve these issues.

Chuck

Museum of Natural Science posted but not legit. Letters to small and wording not correct. I wondered though if I was carrying and there was a school field trip or school function would this be in violation?

[Photoman]

So I guess the question is, "If a private organization is leasing, borrowing or otherwise has permission to use city property, do they have the right to post a 30.06 during their period of use?"

That has been discussed endlessly here on the forum. With one or two exceptions, everyone agrees that leasing it doesn't matter: the law says that if a piece of property is owned by the city, 30.06 is not valid. Period.

I think the Alamo is a good example of this conclusion. While operated by a private organization, the property is owned by the public and previously enforced prohibition is no longer the policy.

[cpileri]

Update 24 Feb: not posted. At least not at the entrance by the butterfly exhibit.
Carry On!
C-

[tbranch]

School events are the same, and you don't have to be a participant; just in attendance.

This is one of those areas. I'm sitting in McDonalds eating lunch and a school field trip arrives. Should I disarm since this is a school event? I don't think so. If I apply the same logic to the museum, I don't think it would apply. Now, if i went along on the trip or joined the trip either as a parent or visitor, then I think it would apply. YMMV...

Tom

[Penn]

That is probably the intent of the law, but the way it is written is another matter. It states "any grounds or building on which an
activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted" , which, in my opinion, would include McDonalds in your example.

[anygunanywhere]

That is probably the intent of the law, but the way it is written is another matter. It states "any grounds or building on which an
activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted" , which, in my opinion, would include McDonalds in your example.

No, it wouldn't. Schools do not "sponsor" lunches at McDonalds.

That is like saying that a string of schoolbuses on i-45 heading to a football game with a constable escort is "sponsoring" a trip and the interstate is off-limits to CHL.

People read wayyyyyyyy too much into the rules, and make wayyyyyyy too much of "fear of being the test case".

Anygunanywhere

[Penn]

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.

[seamusTX]

This law (PC §46.03(a)) is poorly written. A person cannot be charged with "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses[ing] or go[ing] with a firearm" in the vicinity of a roving band of children and adults who may be with a school.

Furthermore, police officers have no reason to search or even talk to a person who is minding his own business in a place like a hamburger joint. They need reasonable suspicion that you are violating the law.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

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 educate those 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

[Penn]

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

Respectfully - can you explain to me what "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted" means. How does a group of students on a field trip not qualify? Since the kids aren't doing something educational while they're eating lunch, then it doesn't count? Do you feel the same about the museum scenario?

I'm not saying you would be prosecuted, but the way it is written makes it illegal, if you had knowledge that it was in fact a school group.
Personally, I think the law means "any grounds owned by the school". At least that is what their intent was. It's not written that way though.

[smyrna]

This is one of those areas. I'm sitting in McDonalds eating lunch and a school field trip arrives. Should I disarm since this is a school event? I don't think so. If I apply the same logic to the museum, I don't think it would apply. Now, if i went along on the trip or joined the trip either as a parent or visitor, then I think it would apply. YMMV...

You almost read my mind. I was thinking...I'm walking in the mall and in walks a parade of school kids to see the Easter Bunny (or whatever). Should I break my neck getting to the car to disarm and risk being seen disarming in the parking lot? Do I have to leave? I think not.

Although Penn brings up a great question...

Respectfully - can you explain to me what "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted" means. How does a group of students on a field trip not qualify? Since the kids aren't doing something educational while they're eating lunch, then it doesn't count? Do you feel the same about the museum scenario?

What we are talking about is the intent of the law versus what it actually says. I believe the intent of the law is to apply to those who knowingly put themselves in or on "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted". For example, I can't pack at my son's football game because I knowingly understand that the location of the event or purpose is a school sponsored one. On the other hand, if I'm in McD's or the mall or the zoo minding my own business and a group of school kids appear on a field trip, and I had no way of knowing that they would appear, then I can't see how I would be in violation.

Another way to look at it is to suppose I was in violation. Then violation is as a result of being of close proximity to this group of kids. Then am I in violation if I'm picking my kid up from school and a bus for a field trip loads and unloads next to my car and I'm standing beside it? I really don't believe this is the intent of the law.

My 2 cents.

[anygunanywhere]

Thank you, smyrna. I will cover your back when the opportunity arises.

Like I stated before, too often individuals read too much into the law. You can not be innocently sitting in a public place armed and then be in violation of the law just because school kids walk in.

I have not been packing as long as some on this board under my Texas CHL, but I have certainly never been paranoid to the point where I would let penn's scenario disturb me to where I thought I was in violation of the law.

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.

Anygunanywhere