TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Morgan wrote:It's the fault of the state. If they would remove text instead of adding exceptions, the confusion would go away.

I disagree to some extent. Sure, it would make things easier in a superficial way, but it could make things a lot harder in more deeply important ways. Here's why:

What they are doing is "amending" existing law, not writing new law. When we amend the Constitution, we don't remove the older amendment that was cancelled out by the new amendment. See the 18th (Prohibition) and 21st (cancelling Prohibition) amendments for an example.

There is a very good reason for doing things this way, and that is so that we can have a record of how we got to where we are. Imagine that the 2nd got overturned by amendment. Wouldn't you want the record there for all to see that Americans had once enjoyed that right, so that future generations could undo the folly of the one that banned firearms?

That's why updates to the law are penned in the way they are. Even when passages are struck from the law, they remain in the text, but crossed out with a line through it, indicating what the law used to say.

That gives us a legal roadmap.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Morgan wrote:It's the fault of the state. If they would remove text instead of adding exceptions, the confusion would go away.

I disagree to some extent. Sure, it would make things easier in a superficial way, but it could make things a lot harder in more deeply important ways.

bigity wrote:Goose, I like your Hog flag :D

Rusty Wrenches wrote:What if the church doubles as a private school?

Rusty Wrenches wrote:What if the church doubles as a private school?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Rusty Wrenches wrote:What if the church doubles as a private school?

The law does not address this fact pattern. As a general statement, I advise people to always treat schools as schools, regardless whether students are present. Thus, if a church meets in a school building on Sundays when school is not in session and no students are present, it's still a "school" for purposes of TPC §46.03. However, if the church building is used as a school from Monday through Friday, then the school does not own the building(s) and it is merely using it/them during weekdays. In these cases, you could carry in church on Sundays without written authorization. You could do likewise during weekday evenings (like Wednesday evenings), so long as the school isn't using the building for a school function.

If you want to carry in the church-owned buildings at any time they are being used as a school, then get written authorization.

Chas.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Rusty Wrenches wrote:What if the church doubles as a private school?

The law does not address this fact pattern. As a general statement, I advise people to always treat schools as schools, regardless whether students are present. Thus, if a church meets in a school building on Sundays when school is not in session and no students are present, it's still a "school" for purposes of TPC §46.03. However, if the church building is used as a school from Monday through Friday, then the school does not own the building(s) and it is merely using it/them during weekdays. In these cases, you could carry in church on Sundays without written authorization. You could do likewise during weekday evenings (like Wednesday evenings), so long as the school isn't using the building for a school function.

If you want to carry in the church-owned buildings at any time they are being used as a school, then get written authorization.

Chas.

Thank you for this Summary Chas! I will go ahead and get written authorization for carry through my church, as myself and other off duty LEO's and CHL holders are the only defense for up to or sometimes over half an hour, due to our remote location.