TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:I don't think you'll find anything applying the statute specifically to carrying in the terminal, which is why nobody gets charged with it (49 U.S. Code § 46505).

ROFL. Think again grasshopper, I the google-fu master can can easily find it, I think you are the one who has trouble finding it.

And folks do get charged. You are falling victim to the belief that if you do not know about it, it did not happen. Sure it does not happen much in Texas/DFW, but that is because our airports are generally absent Federal LEOs. But the Feds do get involved after the fact, usually in the form of civil penalties and criminal charges if the person has criminal intent.

§ 1540.111 Carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals.
(a) On an individual's person or accessible property—prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—
(1) When performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under this subchapter;
(2) When the individual is entering or in a sterile area; or
(3) When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under §§ 1544.201, 1546.201, or 1562.23 of this chapter.

(b) On an individual's person or accessible property—permitted carriage of a weapon. Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply as to carriage of firearms and other weapons if the individual is one of the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel required to carry a firearm or other weapons while in the performance of law enforcement duty at the airport.
(2) An individual authorized to carry a weapon in accordance with §§ 1544.219, 1544.221, 1544.223, 1546.211, or subpart B of part 1562 of this chapter.
(3) An individual authorized to carry a weapon in a sterile area under a security program.

Solaris wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:But I don't think you'll find anything applying the statute specifically to carrying in the terminal, which is why nobody gets charged with it (49 U.S. Code § 46505).

ROFL. Think again grasshopper, I the google-fu master can can easily find it, I think you are the one who has trouble finding it.

And folks do get charged. You are falling victim to the belief that if you do not know about it, it did not happen. Sure it does not happen much in Texas/DFW, but that is because our airports are generally absent Federal LEOs. But the Feds do get involved after the fact, usually in the form of civil penalties and criminal charges if the person has criminal intent.

§ 1540.111 Carriage of weapons, explosives, and incendiaries by individuals.
(a) On an individual's person or accessible property—prohibitions. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property—
(1) When performance has begun of the inspection of the individual's person or accessible property before entering a sterile area, or before boarding an aircraft for which screening is conducted under this subchapter;
(2) When the individual is entering or in a sterile area; or
(3) When the individual is attempting to board or onboard an aircraft for which screening is conducted under §§ 1544.201, 1546.201, or 1562.23 of this chapter.

(b) On an individual's person or accessible property—permitted carriage of a weapon. Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply as to carriage of firearms and other weapons if the individual is one of the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel required to carry a firearm or other weapons while in the performance of law enforcement duty at the airport.
(2) An individual authorized to carry a weapon in accordance with §§ 1544.219, 1544.221, 1544.223, 1546.211, or subpart B of part 1562 of this chapter.
(3) An individual authorized to carry a weapon in a sterile area under a security program.

I acknowledge your skill... But, my google-fu is also strong Master.

Civil penalties (yes I've seen this), criminal charges only IF INTENT....(is shown). The CFR implements the criminal statute which you cited earlier. I speculated that proving a violation of the criminal statute involves INTENT (to circumvent the screening)...it almost always does under federal law. So I stand by the earlier premise that people are rarely if ever charged under the Federal CRIMINAL law because it is very difficult to establish this intent. Also, because feds really don't like bringing criminal statutes to trial where the case for federal jurisdiction is somewhat tenuous (terminals vs. aircraft in interstate commerce). Makes for bad "case law". (Lopez anyone?) Unfortunately I don't have LexisNexis so can't look up all the criminal cases brought under 49 USC 46505.

I may exercise my ninja-like google skills more to see if I can find any appellate cases...or I may reserve it for work where I have to slog through 40,000 pages of absolutely irrelevant CFR (FAR/DFAR) so I can get my measly low $ change order signed by the Army...

Oh how I wish to only have to parse the Texas Penal Code chapter 46....

Ok, so to bring this back to the real world...

I believe that the consensus is that posting at the entrance to the premise makes the parking lot off limits, technically. So, today, I was at a strip center. There is a credit union in that center that is posted 30.06 and 30.07 on the glass doors at their entrance. At the other end, there is a restaurant that is posted once you get inside the doors at the hostess station. If I'm carrying concealed and heading for the restaurant or one of the other businesses am I covered under the law or not? The parking lot is one common area.

There is a legal distinction between "premises" and property, which is specifically defined in the law. IANAL, but premises refers to the building itself, not the grounds, the parking lot, or the sidewalks, etc. Just because a building is posted does not make the whole"property" posted.

Okay, I believe I understand the info people have posted. However, I still didn't see anyone post any actual physical locations where the parking lot of a mall, or similar shopping area, is posted. I'd love to know so I could make sure I stay legal, and to ensure I don't give them any of my money, since if they posted a place like that, they don't seem to want it.

oohrah wrote:Just because a building is posted does not make the whole"property" posted.

I agree (although IANAL either). In my opinion, the sign controls the area behind it. If it's at the entrance to a building it only controls the building, if it's at the entrance to the parking lot it controls the parking lot AND the building.

SMRoot wrote:Ok, so to bring this back to the real world...

I believe that the consensus is that posting at the entrance to the premise makes the parking lot off limits, technically. So, today, I was at a strip center. There is a credit union in that center that is posted 30.06 and 30.07 on the glass doors at their entrance. At the other end, there is a restaurant that is posted once you get inside the doors at the hostess station. If I'm carrying concealed and heading for the restaurant or one of the other businesses am I covered under the law or not? The parking lot is one common area.

No, you are not. You cannot get out of your vehicle carrying concealed in the posted parking lot to get to any business.

Now, if the parking lot is not posted, but only one or two businesses, then that is different. It falls back to who owns the property. Mall property is owned by one company. The stores are leased by other companies. So, if the parking lot is not posted you can carry up to the property that is leased by the other business, but can't carry into their posted leased area of business. Any other business that is not posted would be legal to carry in. The company that leases the location only has control over their portion, not the rest of the mall. Only the mall property owner can post the whole property and make it off limits.

Bryanmc wrote:

oohrah wrote:Just because a building is posted does not make the whole"property" posted.

I agree (although IANAL either). In my opinion, the sign controls the area behind it. If it's at the entrance to a building it only controls the building, if it's at the entrance to the parking lot it controls the parking lot AND the building.

But if it's a single ownership of all the property, then a sign on the building would technically mean any property they own was not legal to enter.

Keith B wrote:

Bryanmc wrote: I agree (although IANAL either). In my opinion, the sign controls the area behind it. If it's at the entrance to a building it only controls the building, if it's at the entrance to the parking lot it controls the parking lot AND the building.

But if it's a single ownership of all the property, then a sign on the building would technically mean any property they own was not legal to enter.

In my opinion, the signs are meant to immediately inform, not to cause an ltc holder to go do research about who owns what so they know what the intent is. If there is a sign at the entrance to the parking lot you can be pretty sure they don't want cc or oc there or in the business, if it's on the building you can reasonably assume that the reason the parking lot entrance isn't posted is because the person that posted didn't have authority to post the parking lot. As I said earlier, the signs to me mean "beyond this point". Although not a great example, if you live on 100 acres and don't want people on any of it, you post the perimeter, not the house that sits in the middle of the property. All this is strictly my opinion though.

Bryanmc wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Bryanmc wrote: I agree (although IANAL either). In my opinion, the sign controls the area behind it. If it's at the entrance to a building it only controls the building, if it's at the entrance to the parking lot it controls the parking lot AND the building.

But if it's a single ownership of all the property, then a sign on the building would technically mean any property they own was not legal to enter.

In my opinion, the signs are meant to immediately inform, not to cause an ltc holder to go do research about who owns what so they know what the intent is. If there is a sign at the entrance to the parking lot you can be pretty sure they don't want cc or oc there or in the business, if it's on the building you can reasonably assume that the reason the parking lot entrance isn't posted is because the person that posted didn't have authority to post the parking lot. As I said earlier, the signs to me mean "beyond this point". Although not a great example, if you live on 100 acres and don't want people on any of it, you post the perimeter, not the house that sits in the middle of the property. All this is strictly my opinion though.

My assumption is that if they own the property including the parking lot, they post the building because it's much easier and cheaper to tape a sign to the door glass or window than to pay for a post and metal sign to be put up at the entrance to the parking lot.

However, most businesses do not own the building they are in, and lease it from a property owner. So, it is more than likely that the business is posting their portion of the property they control. But, if it's not a multi-tenant location I am not going to rick that they don't own the parking lot and carry in it. I will put it in my vehicle (MPA) or leave the property completely.

Bryanmc wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Bryanmc wrote: I agree (although IANAL either). In my opinion, the sign controls the area behind it. If it's at the entrance to a building it only controls the building, if it's at the entrance to the parking lot it controls the parking lot AND the building.

But if it's a single ownership of all the property, then a sign on the building would technically mean any property they own was not legal to enter.

In my opinion, the signs are meant to immediately inform,

Yeah, they are informing you that you can not be on their property with a gun.

How about there is no sign, but an employee standing at door giving same 30.06/07 notice. You think he is going to let you continue stand next to him on the property with a gun? Of course not. You either leave or he calls the cops.

eta

I am not talking about a a strip mall with multiple tenants, but a single parking lot + building with one owner. I agree in a strip mall, they only have control of the property from their door in.