TexasCHLforum.com

tacticool wrote:Is anyone else worried about instructors who don't know the law? It seems there's a recent uptick. No offense to the OP or other instructors, and I give credit to those who try to find out the answers, but I worry that DPS isn't doing a good job teaching new instructors.

I'm worried about someone who thinks they know it all more so than someone who will readily ask when they don't. I'm reminded of an old saying which goes something like this, "Sometimes it's better to not know so much than to know so much that ain't so".

Props to the OP for knowing he needed to ask.

tacticool wrote:Is anyone else worried about instructors who don't know the law? It seems there's a recent uptick. No offense to the OP or other instructors, and I give credit to those who try to find out the answers, but I worry that DPS isn't doing a good job teaching new instructors.

In my Firm, the people at the top are the ones who are least backwards about asking "dumb" questions. It's the new people who are scared to ask for fear of "looking ignorant." Always appreciate those who want a clarification, a "warm fuzzy," or just want to re-learn something they had forgotten.

And, as a college instructor, I'd already be toast if I felt i needed to "know everything," because I don't. I've seen far too many instructors in all fields make that mistake. I make sure that the students know they have the responsibility to challenge me at every opportunity.

Teamless wrote:Sporting event maybe, but is it a professional one? Do these people do this for a living and do they get paid?

Yes, there are many professionals in NHRA drag racing. However, I would think that the only "professional" event would be the SpringNats; although most of the field are amateurs, the pro classes are the dominant part of the event.

Ah, see this one I know!
There is definately no definition for 'professional sporting event'
although, I think we can all agree what a 'sporting event' is, or come pretty close that any competition would count there, but 'professional' is the key word.

You can be an 'amateur' at something, and get paid to do it. Whether you get paid to do it, or it's what you base your livelyhood on are 2 different things as well. There's plenty of people who compete in various events, and get 'paid' to do it, but its not how they earn their primary income. Conversely, there's plenty of 'professional' associations out there, that people don't get paid to compete in, in fact, some require them to 'pay in' to maintain their 'professional' status. So they dont earn money, but its still considered professional?

That's one whole area that requires some definition. Either that, or just remove it completely

During the Spring Nationals for sure and possibly during some of the other sanctioned meets these racers are professionals. They make their living from racing. Ever heard of John Force....

Welcome stever1950. Do they race indoors?

Bringing another one back from the dead?

tacticool wrote:Is anyone else worried about instructors who don't know the law? It seems there's a recent uptick. No offense to the OP or other instructors, and I give credit to those who try to find out the answers, but I worry that DPS isn't doing a good job teaching new instructors.

That is why my class includes the CHL16 and a Power Point handout. Different folks learn best by different ways. Since at least half of my students are newbies, it takes more than 4 hours to sufficiently cover required material with class participation, also the bottom of the application states:

"While class instruction will cover the requirements made by the State of Texas. I realize that this class is not designed to teach the student how to shoot a handgun and there are many aspects of the Law that I must review and will be responsible for knowing. Such as, changes and additions to such Laws affecting LTC holders. I also realize, it is also the responsibility of the LTC license holder to read and understand the existing law and stay current with the law and changes in the law as they occur." So far no complaints.

It's more refined than that.

The "premises"....read, building or portion of a building, of a racetrack is what is off limits.

The real question should be...what is included in the "premises" of a racetrack? Even more importantly...what is meant by the word "building"?

I take that to mean....this is my interpretation only....any constructed "building"; the stands are technically a building...a manmade construction...if you accept my definition. We are used to a "building" being an enclosed structure. There may be more to it than that.

We need a good definition for building.

tex

A building is enclosed by walls and a roof.

bigtek wrote:A building is enclosed by walls and a roof.

Excellent! Now I'm sure you can provide your source for that legal definition.

Please do so, if you will.

tex

Sec. 30.01. 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.

TVGuy wrote:Sec. 30.01. 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.

Chapter 30 deals with BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS. All of the definitions in 30.01 pertain to the rules in that chapter. The rule we are dealing with, 46.03a4 which is contained in Chapter 40. And Chapter 40 has no definition of "building" among all of its specific definitions for that chapter. And Penal Code 1.07 global definitions contain no such definition.

So we still do not have a good definition for " building" specifically for Chapter 40.

Now, under the canons of statutory interpretation, without a legal definition the court would defer to the common meaning and usage of a word or term. And it's not uncommon in those situations that the court would, absent specific chapter or sectional definitions, turn to definitions used in other chapters and sections, especially when the interpretation does no violence to reasonable meaning.

The 30.05 use of "reasonably likely to come to the attention of...." phrase to define what "conspicuous" means in 30.06 and 30.07 is a good example of where a court might turn to define "conspicuous".

So, let's assume that the "building" spoken of in the 46.03 definition of "premises" does mean "... any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use..." then one could conclude that sitting in the stands at a racetrack is permissible since they are not "enclosed intended for [yada, yada, yada]...".

And thus we have the answer to the OP.

Or do we.

tex

Well, it has been 5+ years since anybody in this thread mentioned

"Racetrack" means a facility that is licensed ... for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering on greyhound racing or horse racing.

thetexan wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Sec. 30.01. 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.

Chapter 30 deals with BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS. All of the definitions in 30.01 pertain to the rules in that chapter. The rule we are dealing with, 46.03a4 which is contained in Chapter 40. And Chapter 40 has no definition of "building" among all of its specific definitions for that chapter. And Penal Code 1.07 global definitions contain no such definition.

So we still do not have a good definition for " building" specifically for Chapter 40.

Now, under the canons of statutory interpretation, without a legal definition the court would defer to the common meaning and usage of a word or term. And it's not uncommon in those situations that the court would, absent specific chapter or sectional definitions, turn to definitions used in other chapters and sections, especially when the interpretation does no violence to reasonable meaning.

The 30.05 use of "reasonably likely to come to the attention of...." phrase to define what "conspicuous" means in 30.06 and 30.07 is a good example of where a court might turn to define "conspicuous".

So, let's assume that the "building" spoken of in the 46.03 definition of "premises" does mean "... any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use..." then one could conclude that sitting in the stands at a racetrack is permissible since they are not "enclosed intended for [yada, yada, yada]...".

And thus we have the answer to the OP.

Or do we.

tex

Per statutory construction we would first go to the definition of building elsewhere (Chapter 30) in the Penal Code BEFORE we would go to the common usage. This saves the Legislature from having to repeat the definitions of every word that they seek to define, in every Chapter.