TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

tacticool wrote:Right. A gunbuster sign is enough to make a parking lot off limits for an unlicensed person under MPA. Also, trespassing is not a traffic violation, so they lose MPA protection completely.

Please cite the statutes here, and explain in detail.

Start with under 46.02 where it defines an offense as including not committing any other violation at the time. So, if you were committing a criminal trespass, you would also be guilty of unlawfully carrying. That is a class A and could really hurt someone. But I take it that your question was if it was really committing criminal trespass.

Now, under 30.05, criminal trespass means anything that provides notice that entry was not with the effective consent of the owner. The important point here is that the notice does not apply to a CHL, but an unlicensed person. And the notice can be on any type of property, as the law says property not premises (as in 46.035). There is no limit on what kind of sign there can be in 30.05. even purple paint applied in certain ways can be notice, as can just a fence designed to keep people out or animals in. So, a parking lot could be posted for criminal trespass. So, a gunbuster sign can be considered adequate notice to a non-CHL that his entry on property is without the effective consent of the owner. Other similar signs are common, like "For customers only" in parking lots (usually used to get towing companies profits, but could result in trespassing charges) and signs saying "No gang attire".

So, a non-chl carrying under the MPA would be committing criminal trespass under 30.05 if he drove past a gunbuster sign at the entrance to a parking lot. And then he would not be carrying under the MPA any longer since he is committing another violation at the same time. And the criminal trespass would also be upgraded because he had a deadly weapon with him at the time.

All of this makes me very grateful for the foresight of the people at TSRA (and others also who worked on it, if any) for the way 30.06 was written and passed. It is, in my opinion, a brilliant law for the benefit of CHLs.

sjfcontrol wrote:Many 30.06 signs have "gun buster" emblems on them.

Edit -- this isn't a 30.06 sign (obviously), but is on a parking lot entrance.

Cobra Medic wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Many 30.06 signs have "gun buster" emblems on them.

Edit -- this isn't a 30.06 sign (obviously), but is on a parking lot entrance.

Under the new law, it looks like Sea World employees can have guns in their cars but guests can't, unless the guests are CHL or LEO.

Jumping Frog wrote:

hpcatx wrote:First, the MPA as I understand it does not help with Federal gun free zones, such as driving through school zones. . . .just the 1000 ft surrounding.)

That is correct, in that state law gets trumped by federal law.

However, that is a highly improbable case to become an issue for a law-abiding citizen. First, they are federal charges, not state charges, and I don't typically see the FBI or DEA running local speed traps. Second, those charges are very rarely brought except as an "add-on" charges to other charges. For example, if the DEA is arresting someone for drug trafficking, they could tack on the GFSZ if it occurred in the forbidden area. I know of zero cases where an otherwise law-abiding citizen ever faced GFSZ charges, and I have been keeping my eye open for that for years.

VMI77 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

hpcatx wrote:First, the MPA as I understand it does not help with Federal gun free zones, such as driving through school zones. . . .just the 1000 ft surrounding.)

That is correct, in that state law gets trumped by federal law.

However, that is a highly improbable case to become an issue for a law-abiding citizen. First, they are federal charges, not state charges, and I don't typically see the FBI or DEA running local speed traps. Second, those charges are very rarely brought except as an "add-on" charges to other charges. For example, if the DEA is arresting someone for drug trafficking, they could tack on the GFSZ if it occurred in the forbidden area. I know of zero cases where an otherwise law-abiding citizen ever faced GFSZ charges, and I have been keeping my eye open for that for years.

Curious .....just how does that 1,000 foot rule apply if you live across the street from a school, within 1,000 feet? Wouldn't it violate the law to have guns in your home, or take a gun in or out of your home?

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or

(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.