Accidental gun exposure due to sweat at youth football game

[3dfxMM]

Are we sure he was a CHL and not an off duty LEO?

Maybe neither.

[TexasCajun]

IANAL nor LEO, but I seem to recall from another discussion somewhere that the term "premise" is defined as any type of structure where admission can be monitored/restricted. My CHL instructor did include an example similar to the OP's situation and defined that type of event as a no-carry.

[A-R]

this is the definition right out of the code:

Penal Code 46.035 WEAPONS (f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

"stadium" is not specified here or anywhere else in PC chapter 46

search of the entire penal code does not find the word "stadium"

search for "building" brings up about 7 references, most of them chapter specific, such as this definition (which as I understand it only applies to Chapter 30):

Penal Code 30.01. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS
DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

So, your guess is as good as mine. Is an open air stadium a building if you never enter an enclosed portion of the stadium (ex: four walls and a ceiling of a restroom)?

I dunno, but I don't plan to find out the hard way either.

[Happily Ever After]

The OP didn't specify but even in Texas, there are some football fields that aren't stadiums.

[Greybeard]

What Jag said.

[The Annoyed Man]

this is the definition right out of the code:

Penal Code 46.035 WEAPONS (f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

"stadium" is not specified here or anywhere else in PC chapter 46

46.035 (f)(3) specifies that the term does not include specifically the following things:

1. public or private driveway
2. street
3. sidewalk or walkway
4. parking lot
5. parking garage
6. other parking area

Middle school football field is not specifically excluded by 46.035 (f)(3), so I would not believe that a CHL may carry onto that field unless the legal justification can come from elsewhere. I've always accepted the more restrictive interpretation because, to my mind, the more expansive interpretations are merely wishful thinking unless TPC specifically authorizes it. My reason for taking this view is that the law begins with the premise that carrying a concealed handgun is against the law, because that was the state of the law before CHL was passed. Then it sets about in TPC 46 defining A) a thing called CHL; B) a set of parameters where a CHL may NOT carry his/her gun [examples: house of worship or school]; and C) a further subset where those prohibitions are not applicable [examples: house of worship if not posted 30.06; parking lot of school]. So the logical assumption is that A) if the place at which you desire to carry is listed among places you many not carry (i.e. school); and B) and the subset of places at that location where the prohibition is suspended (i.e. parking lots and walkways) does not include the specific place you want to carry at (middle school on-campus football field); then C) you may not carry there.

I don't want it to be that way, but since the legislature took the trouble to specify a subset of school locations where the prohibition against carry is suspended, and since that specific subset does not include middle school football fields (which are not necessarily a stadium), then any other conclusion is wishful thinking. Normally, I would take the view that unless a thing is made specifically illegal by the law, then it is legal. But in this case, the law begins with the presumption that carrying a concealed handgun illegal for non-LEOs. Then CHL provides an exception for no-LEOs, with limitations, and a narrow subset where those limitations do not apply.

So unless justification for carrying onto a middle school campus football field can be shown to come from elsewhere besides 46.035 (f)(3) (and it would be my sincere desire that such justification exist), then I don't think I can in good conscience tell NordicTexan that no law was violated.

So, where is the flaw in my reasoning? (I sincerely hope there is one.)

[apostate]

"Premises" means a building or a portion of a building.

That's the key for me, unless the activity is sponsored by a school, but your mileage may vary.

[Teamless]

TAM, I think you have stated your case well that the law starts with carrying a gun is illegal and the law then allows it under certain circumstances.
But with that said, and with the following statement: 'not all cops understand the laws fully and can (and have) make their own interpretation of the laws'.
With my prior statement, at the board meeting in question, there were a number of police officers present and none of which had any issues with the carrying at the event, as it was not a school related function.
Does that make it legal? No, I am not saying that, but only that they didn't believe a law was being broken.

[barstoolguru]

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's

2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;

[Greybeard]

Some good discussion here - which can go back to what I often lead off classes with: "The law can be what the prosecutor says it is - at least until a jury decides otherwise."

And while a little more time this morning, in follow up to TAM's request: "I want to know what instructors tell their students, per what DPS instructs them to tell their students."

Heck, I clearly recall back in '95, a lady lawyer at DPS school telling around 300 of us "You can not carry at your kid's Little League game." So, as many of us have learned over the years, even what comes out from DPS' people is not necessarly what the law says.

[barstoolguru]

Heck, I clearly recall back in '95, a lady lawyer at DPS school telling around 300 of us "You can not carry at your kid's Little League game." So, as many of us have learned over the years, even what comes out from DPS' people is not necessarly what the law says

.

I think the difference here is LL games are generally held in public parks as this FB game was on school (federal) property

[RoyGBiv]

The usual disclaimers... IANAL, this is my OPINION, not legal advice.

If we all agree that the activity presented by the OP was not a "collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event"(interscholastic is clearly defined as "an event between two (or more) schools" WEBSTER), then the decision seems to come down to the definition of "Premises". 46.035 very clearly defines "Premises" as "A building or a portion of a building". That's it. The section goes on to describe "some examples" of specific things that are NOT "Premises", but I do not, by any measure, view the list of clarifying examples as an exhaustive list. Just because the baseball field is absent from this list does not, IMO, mean it is off limits for CHL.

Is my fenced yard a "building"?, clearly not.
The same goes for the fenced baseball field.

The only gray area I see is a lockable facility such as a stadium.
As A-R pointed out above, by the definitions in 30.01 a stadium would not be considered a building, but since it's not crystal clear (to me) that 30.01 helps define 46.035, I will not carry in a stadium. But I have no worries about carrying on the HS baseball field, as long as an interscholastic event is not taking place.

IMO, YMMV

[Greybeard]

A somewhat "real world" example from some 4 years ago with even more serious ramifications. Yet, eventually no billed by Grand Jury. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20432&p=238170&hili ... er#p238170" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sorry, no time just now to research specific location further (17 classes in the next 13 days! Ugh!), but I do not believe the man was charged with unlawful carry by license holder - even after drawing down on the irate husband at the kid's soccer game.

[jocat54]

Not an instructor, but according to the law as I read it,

PC §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;
(c) In this section: (1) “Premises” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

Further,

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (f) In this section:
(3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

So if you are not in a building or portion of a building, you may be okay. Of course if it is a stadium, it may fall into the definition, but if just a field with some bleachers, it may not.

I decline to volunteer to be the test case.

To me there is a lot of grey area in the law...I highlighted in blue some more of what catches my eye.

It does say "any grounds" but then goes on to say an activity sponsored by a school, which it was not.

Guess it really is interpretation............but by whom?

[barstoolguru]

Being on school property would in fact be sponsored parley by the school, I would think it has to be for them to use school property legally

There would have to be a written agreement and under state law for a contract to be legal and binding money has to change hands thus making a legit school sanction function