Multiple CHL 'types' ?

[ELB]

As practical matter, if you simply drive by a school with your gun, without incident, who is to know? But that does not make it legal.

Keith B posted the law, read it and see if you can find any exception for being on a public road, other than having a CHL from the correct state, being a cop, having permission from the school, etc etc. There isn't one.

I had a file of prosecutions related to this law, but it seems to be corrupted. If I can reconstitute it, I will post on it here.

In the grand scheme of this, this is just one decision factor in whether to get a TX vs UT, but it should not be ignored.

[The Sarge]

I called my instructor to get some clarity here and he provided it...basically what he is saying is this...
If a person has a Utah CHL or no CHL at all and the gun is in the glove box, center console, under the seat (whatever) out of sight they are breaking no laws...if a person (described above) has the gun on their person such as in a holster then they are breaking the law....so there is my confusion anyway...yes you can carry a gun through a school zone on a public road in your glove box/under your seat etc. but not concealed on your body without a Texas CHL....

[Keith B]

I called my instructor to get some clarity here and he provided it...basically what he is saying is this...
If a person has a Utah CHL or no CHL at all and the gun is in the glove box, center console, under the seat (whatever) out of sight they are breaking no laws...if a person (described above) has the gun on their person such as in a holster then they are breaking the law....so there is my confusion anyway...yes you can carry a gun through a school zone on a public road in your glove box/under your seat etc. but not concealed on your body without a Texas CHL....

Sorry, but with all due respect to your instructor, that interpretation is not correct. Please ask them to quote the statute or law that states that you can have it in your glove box, but not on your body in a car and where in the GFSZA or Texas MPA it states you are exempt without a Texas CHL.

[The Sarge]

I have sent him this thread link....

[Keith B]

I have sent him this thread link....

Thanks!

[karl]

Does the "private property" stated in the law extend to your vehicle?

[Keith B]

Does the "private property" stated in the law extend to your vehicle?

I don't think so, but again, IANAL. Vehicle and habitation are defined in TPC 30.01, and have separate meanings. I am not aware of any state or federal statute that defines your vehicle as private property with the intent I believe they mean for it in the GFSZA.

EDIT TO ADD: I believe the intent on the GFSZA is for 'real property' which is defined under law as land, and homes and buiildings attached to it .

[The Sarge]

Just for grins I called the Sheriffs Dept and asked "With no CHL can I carry a loaded handgun concealed in my car while I drive through a school zone without stopping as I am traveling..."
Took a few minutes :) But she came back and said as long as it is concealed...yes....
So obviously there is significant confusion!
Now I know we all have our Texas CHL but there is a lot of confusion on this subject....hopefully the CHL instructor will chime in here.....

[The Sarge]

I am sorry....I just could not let this go (for my own personal edification)......I found a guy asking the same thing of the BATFE and please find their response.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So I have no doubt...carrying a gun with a Utah CHL or no CHL in your car's glove box/center console or under the seat is a federal offense within a 1000' of a school. Period.
You must have a Texas CHL to do so in Texas.
Thanks guys for your input on the subject. This forum is a valuable asset for sure!

[Purplehood]

I am sorry....I just could not let this go (for my own personal edification)......I found a guy asking the same thing of the BATFE and please find their response.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So I have no doubt...carrying a gun with a Utah CHL or no CHL in your car's glove box/center console or under the seat is a federal offense.
You must have a Texas CHL to do so in Texas.
Thanks guys for your input on the subject. This forum is a valuable asset for sure!

Ooooh! That BATFE letter just reminded me of why I have a major problem with that Agency. What in the Sam Peckinpah does Interstate or Foreign Commerce have to do with 2A gun rights?

[ELB]

Just for grins I called the Sheriffs Dept and asked "With no CHL can I carry a loaded handgun concealed in my car while I drive through a school zone without stopping as I am traveling..."
Took a few minutes :) But she came back and said as long as it is concealed...yes....
So obviously there is significant confusion!
Now I know we all have our Texas CHL but there is a lot of confusion on this subject....hopefully the CHL instructor will chime in here.....

I would not try to enlighten them. Just sayin'.

[The Sarge]

Yeah....I know all of them well...very small county...very rural here.....
Bottom line is this....
It is a Federal Law. Locals are not going to enforce nor really train on Fed stuff ( I am told)...they are trained to enforce State Laws.
I really only see this being enforced if something else is happening and they add this charge to the "list"....
But it is a law...and that is what I was after was more specific definition. I have written both my Senator and Congressman today concerning States reciprocating CHL issues and this law interfering with States Rights.

[ELB]

I really only see this being enforced if something else is happening and they add this charge to the "list"....

On the cases I have (re-)discovered, this is typically what happens, and in a number of them the "something else" was vastly more illegal.

But, it does make what should be perfectly valid conduct (i.e. a license holder passing by with a CHL from another state and a gun) illegal, and I do not have unlimited faith in the discretion of prosecutors and police. E.g. some place like Houston under the recent reign of a certain prosecutor, or say Philadelphia. Any inadvertent disclosure that one has an out-of-state license due to something like a traffic accident, or witnessing an event, or whathaveyou, could prove very troublesome.

Here is one of the cases I have run across.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is an interesting read for several reasons. Tait was indicted by a federal grand jury with being a felon in possession of a firearm and having a gun on school property in violation of the GFSZ Act, after he was arrested by local police for placing a loaded gun against the neck of a student while the property of an Alabama high school. (So much for the locals not enforcing federal law). I can find no info about what happened with the original arrest. Tait filed a motion in Federal District Court to dismiss both federal charges based on exceptions in the applicable law -- and succeeded.

Altho he had been convicted of three felonies in Michigan and served prison time, Michigan law restores a felon's rights once the sentence has been completed (which is one of the exceptions of the felon-in-possession law). Also, he had a concealed permit issued by the state (Alabama, where now lived) in which the school zone was located. The Government appealed and argues six ways from Sunday that a) he really didn't have his rights restored, and b) Alabama's concealed handgun law didn't qualify ANY licensee for the exception in the GFSZ Act because it was too lax and that Tait didn't meet Alabama's licensing qualifications anyway, and therefore his license was invalid.

The USCA, 11th Circuit didn't buy the government's arguments, and rejected the appeal.

Tait won, as he should have, but he should not have had to jump through all those hoops in the first place, at least as far as the GFSZ goes.

[chabouk]

Here is one of the cases I have run across.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, that's interesting. I checked the dates, and Tait was prosecuted under the 2nd version of GFSZA, which passed in 1996 after the 1990 law was overturned by SCOTUS in Lopez, in 1995.

It's the first time I've read a case under that law. I'm glad the 11th Circuit (which tends to favor the government) didn't buy the government's arguments.

[ELB]

Here is one of the cases I have run across.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, that's interesting. I checked the dates, and Tait was prosecuted under the 2nd version of GFSZA, which passed in 1996 after the 1990 law was overturned by SCOTUS in Lopez, in 1995.

It's the first time I've read a case under that law. I'm glad the 11th Circuit (which tends to favor the government) didn't buy the government's arguments.

Ok, here's a couple more I retrieved. There are not a lot of them --- or at least I didn't find a lot of them.

http://openjurist.org/221/f3d/1037/unit ... rdan-danks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
US vs Danks, USCA 8th Circuit

Danks shot at a car within 1000 feet of an elementary school, and was charged under the GFSZ Act, 1995 version (with "jurisdictional element" added). Danks argued that even as amended, the law exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce clause. Danks lost.

http://openjurist.org/480/f3d/597/unite ... ves-castao" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

US vs NIEVES-CASTAÑO, USCA 1st Circuit
NIEVES-CASTAÑO was convicted of possession of a machine gun, and possessing a firearm within 1000' of a school. The 1st Circuit overturned her conviction for possession of a machine gun (which is interesting reading in itself), but upheld the GFSZ Act of 1995 conviction. Altho the gun in question was in her apartment (in a public housing project), she did not challenge the law on the exception for guns on "private" property, but rather argued that the 1000' requirement was unconstitutionally vague, because it did not specify how it should be measured (e.g. from the school property line? from the building?) The appeals court ruled against her, citing various other cases and laws, with distance measurements, but in the end basically said she was so close to the school, it didn't matter how it was measured, she was too close.