TexasCHLforum.com

The building does not need a sign because of the one on the garage. This is the trick to think about (and I think we have discussed it before). Because of the MPA, the sign does not apply to cars. You can drive into the garage with you gun because it does not mention people legally carrying a gun other than with a CHL (so it doesn't apply to travelers, cops, etc.).

But the sign does apply to you as soon as you get out of your car. You cannot walk from the car to the building with a gun because of the sign. So, if you cannot have the gun while walking to the building, there is no way to legally get it into the building and thus the building does not need the sign.

The other part to consider is that 30.06 says "entry on the property" not premises. A sign by the entrance to the property also covers all of the proeprty, including the building.

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: And as previously discussed, since the CHL is an exception to PC 46.02 we are only carrying under the authority of our CHL when carry without CHL would otherwise be illegal. Since it's not illegal to carry in a vehicle (MPA), we are not carrying under CHL while in our vehicles.

And we've been here before... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=53668&p=657495&hili ... pa#p657536" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, there's an interesting twist in the plot. I had always believed as Keith B does that once one has a CHL and is off of their own property they are always carrying under that authority. However, now I'm not so sure. Although it might be pretty tough to explain that to an officer during a traffic stop or whatever reason one is being asked for identification, at least the penalty for not displaying, showing, or notifying the LEO that one has a CHL. Now, I guess, another separate issue whether or not there is a penalty for just flat out not having your license with you making you unable to to show your license once the officer asks you why you didn't not give it to him with your DL when he asked you for your ID. I believe there a few threads on that around here somewhere, though.

Just because you're not carrying under CHL, does NOT mean you dont have to show your license!!! The law is that you have to display if your carrying - period. NOT if your carrying under CHL. so, yes, you still need to show your CHL even if your carrying under MPA, although there is no longer any penalty if you don't.

There is a thread here somewhere, where the licensee was unable to display because he didn't have his License, the officer wasn't concerned. However, YMMV!!

OK, I'll concede again to Steve and Charles view. I still think there may be some hassle if you are caught with it in the vehicle past the 30.06, so be prepared to challenge the DA with the facts Steve and Charles have laid out if for some reason it happens.

Another related twist. You do NOT have a CHL but have a pistol on your person in the car under MPA. You are stopped for speeding and the officer asks you to exit the vehicle. What's next? Better not try to disarm, but having the weapon concealed, and out of the car, would be a violation, right? But so ordered by the officer? Just curious.

gdanaher wrote:Another related twist. You do NOT have a CHL but have a pistol on your person in the car under MPA. You are stopped for speeding and the officer asks you to exit the vehicle. What's next? Better not try to disarm, but having the weapon concealed, and out of the car, would be a violation, right? But so ordered by the officer? Just curious.

This is a good reason to not carry on-body in your vehicle if you do not have a CHL. There are numerous reasons you might need to exit the car rapidly and you now have an issue UCW once you exit.

<--opened a can of worms huh? I am really digging the responses. Thank you all so far for your involvement and insight.

srothstein wrote:The building does not need a sign because of the one on the garage. This is the trick to think about (and I think we have discussed it before). Because of the MPA, the sign does not apply to cars. You can drive into the garage with you gun because it does not mention people legally carrying a gun other than with a CHL (so it doesn't apply to travelers, cops, etc.).

But the sign does apply to you as soon as you get out of your car. You cannot walk from the car to the building with a gun because of the sign. So, if you cannot have the gun while walking to the building, there is no way to legally get it into the building and thus the building does not need the sign.

The other part to consider is that 30.06 says "entry on the property" not premises. A sign by the entrance to the property also covers all of the property, including the building.

Since the only 30.06 sign around is on the parking garage, I could technically park on the surface lot and still enter the building. But I completely understand that walking around in the garage is off limits. This has been an interesting discussion.

Keith B wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Another related twist. You do NOT have a CHL but have a pistol on your person in the car under MPA. You are stopped for speeding and the officer asks you to exit the vehicle. What's next? Better not try to disarm, but having the weapon concealed, and out of the car, would be a violation, right? But so ordered by the officer? Just curious.

This is a good reason to not carry on-body in your vehicle if you do not have a CHL. There are numerous reasons you might need to exit the car rapidly and you now have an issue UCW once you exit.

Why would someone possibly want to body carry inside their car if they don't have a CHL? A weapon is much less accessible from most holster locations while seated with a seatbelt on, than it would be in, say, the center console. I'm not even sure why someone would be wearing a holster outside their home if they don't have a CHL.

I have a CHL and I don't body carry in my car if I can avoid it. I would much rather have the weapon in my center console, inside its' holster. The only time I might body carry in a car is if I'm not driving, or I have a back-up in the center console.

mossytxn wrote:

other part to consider is that 30.06 says "entry on the property" not premises. A sign by the entrance to the property also covers all of the property, including the building.

Since the only 30.06 sign around is on the parking garage, I could technically park on the surface lot and still enter the building. But I completely understand that walking around in the garage is off limits. This has been an interesting discussion.

The law does not require a sign at every entrance. If you choose to use a different entrance to avoid the sign you know is there, maybe they can't prove you're breakng the law, but you know you are.

recaffeination wrote:

mossytxn wrote:

other part to consider is that 30.06 says "entry on the property" not premises. A sign by the entrance to the property also covers all of the property, including the building.

Since the only 30.06 sign around is on the parking garage, I could technically park on the surface lot and still enter the building. But I completely understand that walking around in the garage is off limits. This has been an interesting discussion.

The law does not require a sign at every entrance. If you choose to use a different entrance to avoid the sign you know is there, maybe they can't prove you're breakng the law, but you know you are.

I would not. The only reason I have to enter the building is to go to work, where carry is forbidden. But there are other businesses in the building. You could enter from the surface lot to go to the bank there for instance. However, in this case, the parking garage and the building are two distinct structures. I believe the sign to be valid for the garage. The building seems to be wide open since none of the three entrances there are posted.

I don't believe for a minute that when the law was passed, it was the intent to allow the property owner to disallow guns that affected tenant employers. Very few business "own" the property they are on. Even some of the bigger businesses are leasing the property from another entity within their corporation.

ScooterSissy wrote:I don't believe for a minute that when the law was passed, it was the intent to allow the property owner to disallow guns that affected tenant employers. Very few business "own" the property they are on. Even some of the bigger businesses are leasing the property from another entity within their corporation.

That's the only explanation that makes sense, when you read the law and see it says employers and employees many times.

If the legislature intended to cover all parking lots, or all parking lots that are a "public place" as defined in Sec. 1.07 of the penal code, it's reasonable to think they would have said that.