TexasCHLforum.com

Personally, I avoid school buildings. I work at a Private University and its annoying to disarm before coming into work, but thats the rule.

I'm really not sure what the legal point is. Kalrog, your points seem valid to me, but TXI also makes a lot of sense...

charles ?

1TallTXn wrote:Personally, I avoid school buildings. I work at a Private University and its annoying to disarm before coming into work, but thats the rule.

I'm really not sure what the legal point is. Kalrog, your points seem valid to me, but TXI also makes a lot of sense...

charles ?

I was staying out of this one, because it deals with my definition of premises, so I'm hardly unbiased on this one. But, here's my take on it.

This will be more in the nature of history lesson than anything else, but the definition of “premises� is the one I submitted to Rep. Carter and Senator Patterson. (Former AG Morales even referenced it in one of his AG Opinions.) When SB60 passed in 1995, the term “premises� wasn’t statutorily defined in the Penal Code. Therefore, I was concerned that the courts would look to case law to determine the scope of the term. Cases under the Alcoholic Beverage Code defined “premises� to include everything on the real estate. In fact, if a shopping center contains a store that sells alcohol, the entire parking lot is part of the “premises.�

For this reason, I argued for a statutory definition of “premises� and provided the suggested language. This language was adopted in an amendment and became part of the version of SB60 that passed. During all of our discussions, it was understood that the reason for the phrase “or portion of a building� was to prevent the use of a broom closet by a court as a grounds for making the entire building off-limits. Very little time was spent on this portion of the definition, as it was believed this would not be an issue, since the entire tenor of the definition is limiting rather than expansive in nature.

Unfortunately, this has become an issue and some cities are doing precisely what the phrase was intended to prevent. Look for a clarification to be proposed in 2007 - one that will include not only this issue, but a further clarification to issues related to schools.

Regards,
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

1TallTXn wrote:Personally, I avoid school buildings. I work at a Private University and its annoying to disarm before coming into work, but thats the rule.

I'm really not sure what the legal point is. Kalrog, your points seem valid to me, but TXI also makes a lot of sense...

charles ?

I was staying out of this one, because it deals with my definition of premises, so I'm hardly unbiased on this one. But, here's my take on it.

This will be more in the nature of history lesson than anything else, but the definition of “premises� is the one I submitted to Rep. Carter and Senator Patterson. (Former AG Morales even referenced it in one of his AG Opinions.) When SB60 passed in 1995, the term “premises� wasn’t statutorily defined in the Penal Code. Therefore, I was concerned that the courts would look to case law to determine the scope of the term. Cases under the Alcoholic Beverage Code defined “premises� to include everything on the real estate. In fact, if a shopping center contains a store that sells alcohol, the entire parking lot is part of the “premises.�

For this reason, I argued for a statutory definition of “premises� and provided the suggested language. This language was adopted in an amendment and became part of the version of SB60 that passed. During all of our discussions, it was understood that the reason for the phrase “or portion of a building� was to prevent the use of a broom closet by a court as a grounds for making the entire building off-limits. Very little time was spent on this portion of the definition, as it was believed this would not be an issue, since the entire tenor of the definition is limiting rather than expansive in nature.

Unfortunately, this has become an issue and some cities are doing precisely what the phrase was intended to prevent. Look for a clarification to be proposed in 2007 - one that will include not only this issue, but a further clarification to issues related to schools.

Regards,
Chas.

That seems to clear it up. It seems my interpretation was off.

txinvestigator wrote:That seems to clear it up. It seems my interpretation was off.

TXI - I think that clears up the INTENT. Glad I was right on that one... I didn't want to get caught and have to face all of those potential problems if I was wrong on this one.

But it doesn't sound like it clears up how it is actually being used in the field. I sure hope this does get addressed in 2007 as I trust your reading of the TPC as much as I do just about anyone's and if you had an honest misunderstanding about what it meant, then I would hate to see how some DA who wants it to keep additional stuff off limits would interpret it.

Be careful guys, you're both right. The intent was to limit the effect of using a portion of a building for a purpose that makes the building off-limits, but the application is often as txinvestigator describes. My definition apparently wasn't as clear as I believed. I think the next one is!

Chas.

Do you need some word smithing help there, Charles? Happy to help out for the priviledge of this forum.