TexasCHLforum.com

mgood wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I could proclaim myself "El Granito Hombre, Master of All Mountain Rock", but it doesn't necessarily make it so...

Maybe it does if no one challenges you on it.

People can do whatever they want until somebody stops them. Just look at Romneybama Care.

sjfcontrol wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The only legislation I know of concerns the Castle doctrine. It was expanded to include your car and any hotel/motel room you might stay in. I think it needs to be clarified by the yahoos in Austin. I won't be staying in any place that bans my carry...or will I?

RJ

Can you point to the legislation that speaks to hotel/motel rooms?

I could, but then you would never learn to walk on your own.

johnson0317 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:The only legislation I know of concerns the Castle doctrine. It was expanded to include your car and any hotel/motel room you might stay in. I think it needs to be clarified by the yahoos in Austin. I won't be staying in any place that bans my carry...or will I?

RJ

Can you point to the legislation that speaks to hotel/motel rooms?

I could, but then you would never learn to walk on your own.

Well, thank you very much.

OK, OK! My kids give me that same face.

S.B. No. 378

AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding

Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

Which says:

§ 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is
adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion
of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected
with the structure or vehicle.
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended
for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade,
manufacture, ornament, or use.
(3) "Vehicle" includes any device in, on, or by which
any person or property is or may be propelled, moved, or drawn in
the normal course of commerce or transportation, except such
devices as are classified as "habitation."

There, don't you feel better now?

(Seriously -- thanks!)

While potentially very important if you shoot someone who breaks into your hotel room in Texas, I don't see how it's relevant to the question of whether a landlord (or hotel) may prohibit firearms on their property as a term of the lease or other contract.

Consider that the Castle Doctrine also applies in our "place of business or employment" but if an employer has a policy prohibiting firearms, they can fire someone who carries in the office.

apostate wrote:While potentially very important if you shoot someone who breaks into your hotel room in Texas, I don't see how it's relevant to the question of whether a landlord (or hotel) may prohibit firearms on their property as a term of the lease or other contract.

Consider that the Castle Doctrine also applies in our "place of business or employment" but if an employer has a policy prohibiting firearms, they can fire someone who carries in the office.

Yeah, I think I was headed in the same direction. You may be justified in using deadly force to repel a break-in in a hotel, but I suspect you're still subject to the 30.06 sign in the lobby, which you have to walk by to get to your room. And I haven't seen any legislation that says a hotel couldn't enforce a "No Firearms" policy in the rooms -- or in an apartment as is the subject of this thread.

That is what I meant when I said the yahoos in Austin need to clarify it, like they clarified the parking lot rule. In the meantime, I will probably avoid any hotel that posts a 30.06.

RJ

Isn't there a law that says you can carry if you're walking directly to your house?...like if your car breaks down and you have to walk home, you're still good? If so, then you should be good to rent the room, go back to your car, and be able to take it directly from your vehicle to your room, right?

P.S. Don't ask me for the law, I remember my CHL instructor talking about it...

Superman wrote:Isn't there a law that says you can carry if you're walking directly to your house?

There's something about that in MPA. I don't think it overrides trespassing. I'm no lawyer.

I do not believe you have any defense against prosecution if your car breaks down, you do not have a CHL, and you choose to carry your weapon while walking to your house. You are allowed to carry from your house to your car, and back, and to the range and back, and to the gunsmith, and back...but I really do not think you are covered to simply take a hike with it because your car broke down.

RJ

johnson0317 wrote:I do not believe you have any defense against prosecution if your car breaks down, you do not have a CHL, and you choose to carry your weapon while walking to your house. You are allowed to carry from your house to your car, and back, and to the range and back, and to the gunsmith, and back...but I really do not think you are covered to simply take a hike with it because your car broke down.

RJ

Technically you would be walking from your car to your house, and the car would be parked (or crashed) as close to "on your property" as you could get it.

Notalawyer...

johnson0317 wrote:I do not believe you have any defense against prosecution if your car breaks down, you do not have a CHL, and you choose to carry your weapon while walking to your house. You are allowed to carry from your house to your car, and back, and to the range and back, and to the gunsmith, and back...but I really do not think you are covered to simply take a hike with it because your car broke down.

RJ

Actually, PC46.02(a)(2) states: [A person commits a crime if carrying a gun, knife or club, if the person is not] "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control". It says nothing about carrying it back.

sjfcontrol wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:I do not believe you have any defense against prosecution if your car breaks down, you do not have a CHL, and you choose to carry your weapon while walking to your house. You are allowed to carry from your house to your car, and back, and to the range and back, and to the gunsmith, and back...but I really do not think you are covered to simply take a hike with it because your car broke down.

RJ

Actually, PC46.02(a)(2) states: [A person commits a crime if carrying a gun, knife or club, if the person is not] "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control". It says nothing about carrying it back.

Yeah, I remember pondering that when it first became law. I had imagined a car with no place to sit from carrying weapons to the car with no way to carry them back.

boba wrote:

mgood wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I could proclaim myself "El Granito Hombre, Master of All Mountain Rock", but it doesn't necessarily make it so...

Maybe it does if no one challenges you on it.

People can do whatever they want until somebody stops them. Just look at Romneybama Care.

Yeah I agree.