TexasCHLforum.com

3dfxMM wrote:It is perfectly legal and enforceable for a privately owned parking lot to be posted with a 30.06 sign. It doesn't apply while in your vehicle due to MPA, but it does make it illegal for you to exit your vehicle without first disarming.

Let me clear it up
If you are employee of non-government business. You can store your firearms/ammo in your locked car even though there is a 30.06 posted on the front entrance.
If you are not an employee you cannot be armed with your CC firearms beyond the 30.06 sign without being violation of the law.

Still the official page does not included measures of 2015 session.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Index.aspx

Beiruty wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:It is perfectly legal and enforceable for a privately owned parking lot to be posted with a 30.06 sign. It doesn't apply while in your vehicle due to MPA, but it does make it illegal for you to exit your vehicle without first disarming.

Let me clear it up
If you are employee of non-government business. You can store your firearms/ammo in your locked car even though there is a 30.06 posted on the front entrance.
If you are not an employee you cannot be armed with your CC firearms beyond the 30.06 sign without being violation of the law.

You can if you leave the weapon in your car. 30.06 only applies when carrying under authority of CHL, which you don't need to carry in your car.

Example:

Don't have a CHL and carrying in your car under MPA. 30.06 does not apply.
Have a CHL, but carrying in your car under MPA, 30.06 does not apply.

Get out of your car with CCW, then you run afoul of 30.06 in a properly posted parking lot.

Russell wrote:RoyGBiv,

That's correct, however that restriction is intended for CHL holders under section 46.03, we are talking about a parking lot restriction via 30.06.

Parking lots are indeed set aside in 46.03/035, but can be perfectly valid in section 30.06.

Scott DLS posted the part I should have led with... I assumed you were talking 30.06 and didn't post it.
As Scott's quote shows, 30.06 points to 46.03/46.035 for the answer.

Austin ISD thought it applied to them. They have replaced the signs entering the parking lots.

Last year, they said something to the effect that handguns, even with a license, were not allowed on school property.

Now all they say is:

"No Prohibited Weapons on School Property pursuant to Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code."

and also in Spanish.

android wrote:Austin ISD thought it applied to them. They have replaced the signs entering the parking lots.

Last year, they said something to the effect that handguns, even with a license, were not allowed on school property.

Now all they say is:

"No Prohibited Weapons on School Property pursuant to Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code."

and also in Spanish.

Their new language means if you have a CHL, you are good with your CC on the parking lot, driveways, etc... Under MPA, I do not think you can be on school parking lot even if the firearm stays in the car due to the federal law. (regarding some min distance from a school).

If zoos are amusement parks, we get to ride the animals right? To be amused, I want to see real life survivor shows! How many tickets do you get for throwing the ball in the hippo's mouth?

Tree hugger...

Concealed means concealed.

george wrote:And THAT is why I studied physics and not law.

You guys amaze me.

Interesting, George. That raises a point which I have also found to be interesting, if trivial in the context of this thread. The top graduates of my law school class, and those for several years before mine had their undergraduate degrees in the sciences, engineering and mathematics. Without exception. Granted, that was many long years ago.

It follows, of course, that those with liberal (with a small "l") arts degrees did relatively, if not substantially, less well.

At that time, the same relationship was noted when comparing the results of the Law School Aptitude Test (LSAT) with prior undergraduate degrees. Indeed, the valedictorian of my law school class, an engineer with a substantial physics and mathematics background, achieved so high a mark on his LSAT (essentially perfect) that the Admissions Council declared the test to be unreliable in his case, suggesting that the results not be used in assessing the quality of the applicant. I would, to the contrary, suggest that his results on the LSAT proved to be quite valid.

The Law School Admissions Council, which designed, administers and grades the LSAT, gives as it purpose, "the LSAT is designed to assess reading comprehension, logical, and verbal reasoning proficiencies." My question: are those attributes any different from those needed by a proficient student of physics?

My answer: "not at all." In my opinion success at both professions -- the sciences, including physics, depend on a capability for deductive reasoning -- the ease of use of the most basic syllogisms.

IMHO your observation (which I recognize, of course, is facetious, and do not at all criticize) displays the very common misunderstanding on the part of the public about the study and practice of law. Too many aspirants to the legal profession carefully tailor their undergraduate education in the direction of the liberal arts and avoid the study of the sciences. As might be expected, they enter the legal profession with their feet off the ground, never having had to solve a difficult problem -- and the problems one encounters in the practice of law can sometimes be quite difficult.

I suppose that I am suggesting, George, that you were a prime candidate for law school.

Jim

Law is all about logic. Logic is the core of Math. Math is Core of Engineering. This is why I am in Engineer and I worked in Patent law

And it was said "There, there, is "A Brilliant Mind".

Beiruty wrote:Law is all about logic. Logic is the core of Math. Math is Core of Engineering. This is why I am in Engineer and I worked in Patent law

And it was said "There, there, is "A Brilliant Mind".

Yes. And Physics is the logical application of mathematics to the physical world. In fact the term for Physics used to be Natural Philosophy.

US law and the Constitution takes a lot from English Common Law, Enlightenment Philosophy, and even further back from major world religions. I think a BSc in Physics is a great background for an advanced degree in Law and/or Business.