The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
I think your interpretation is incorrect and I think Keith B. and Charles agree with me. Keith says in this very thread ...Chityworker wrote:Does not 30.06 only apply to carrying under the authority of you CHL? When entering the garage within your vehicle you are covered under the Motorist Protection Act and the 30.06 posting does not apply. Is my interpretation incorrect ?
and Charles in another ...by Keith B » 20 Sep 2011 14:17
There is no case law on this, but my personal opinion is that if you lease space, you would normally get parking lot privileges. So, at that point I think you should be protected by SB321 and 30.06 would not apply on your employer's lot. Otherwise, since many companies lease buildings and space, all the company would have to do is have the landlord post a 30.06 and prohibit you from parking there with a gun. Not sure that would be valid.
And, I still believe that MPA is out the window if you have a CHL. Don't believe you can switch hats at will, but could be wrong.
by Charles L. Cotton » 08 Jul 2011 17:23
You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
I'm not sure but there is an easy way to fix it, go ahead and join!chlag01 wrote:I'm not a TSRA member yet. Would they still be open to me sending them an email on the subject?
I believe you took Charles' comments out of context. If you go further back in that thread, you will see that I predicted that companies would try to have their 'non-leased' parking facilities posted 30.06.C-dub wrote:I think your interpretation is incorrect and I think Keith B. and Charles agree with me. Keith says in this very thread ...Chityworker wrote:Does not 30.06 only apply to carrying under the authority of you CHL? When entering the garage within your vehicle you are covered under the Motorist Protection Act and the 30.06 posting does not apply. Is my interpretation incorrect ?
and Charles in another ...by Keith B » 20 Sep 2011 14:17
There is no case law on this, but my personal opinion is that if you lease space, you would normally get parking lot privileges. So, at that point I think you should be protected by SB321 and 30.06 would not apply on your employer's lot. Otherwise, since many companies lease buildings and space, all the company would have to do is have the landlord post a 30.06 and prohibit you from parking there with a gun. Not sure that would be valid.
And, I still believe that MPA is out the window if you have a CHL. Don't believe you can switch hats at will, but could be wrong.
by Charles L. Cotton » 08 Jul 2011 17:23
You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
i8godzilla wrote:It would be easier to lease the parking lot to a new company. That company could then post the parking lot 30.06. Employees could be required to buy a parking pass from the new company if they wished to park there. The employer could even reimburse the employees' parking fees.
Dare you to bet me that this will not happen....................
I then asked Charles about the need to produce my actual plastic when in my car, if I was carrying under authority of MPA NOT my CHL. Charles responded with the quote you provided. I took his response to mean that you must always display you CHL, when armed, even if not carrying under the protection of your CHL.Charles Cotton wrote:That wouldn't work for at least two reasons. First, TPC §30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL unless they are carrying pursuant to their CHL. Since having a handgun in your car isn't illegal (Motorist Protection Act), you would not be carrying pursuant to your CHL. Also, a person could put the handgun in the truck and it would not be "on or about [their] person" so they wouldn't be "carrying."
Looking at the photo of the sign(s) there's also a generic prohibition on weapons. I believe that is valid 30.05 notice and is meaningful for someone with a rifle or shotgun. Do people agree or disagree?Chityworker wrote:Does not 30.06 only apply to carrying under the authority of you CHL? When entering the garage within your vehicle you are covered under the Motorist Protection Act and the 30.06 posting does not apply. Is my interpretation incorrect ?
It does look like they have covered their bases.apostate wrote:Looking at the photo of the sign(s) there's also a generic prohibition on weapons. I believe that is valid 30.05 notice and is meaningful for someone with a rifle or shotgun. Do people agree or disagree?Chityworker wrote:Does not 30.06 only apply to carrying under the authority of you CHL? When entering the garage within your vehicle you are covered under the Motorist Protection Act and the 30.06 posting does not apply. Is my interpretation incorrect ?
Joined now. I'll send Alice Tripp an email.G.A. Heath wrote:I'm not sure but there is an easy way to fix it, go ahead and join!chlag01 wrote:I'm not a TSRA member yet. Would they still be open to me sending them an email on the subject?
I'm not so sure. It was a foreseeable consequence of limiting the protection to the employer-employee relationship. As I recall, several members of this forum posited similar scenarios.lkd wrote:This is clearly the opposite of the law's intention.
I think what he meant was the Government Code requires a person with a CHL to display their license without regard to whether the person is carrying "under the authority" of their CHL. I believe he was very clear in what he said in his response to igodzilla8 that carrying a gun in the car is not carrying under the authority of the CHL, therefore 30.06 does not apply.C-dub wrote:That is possible, but I thought his response indicated that if we were armed we were always carrying under the authority of our CHL. Are you depending on the technicality that when the gun is in the car and we are not the gun is legally in the car under the MPA? If so, wouldn't they only have to wait until you entered the car?
