TexasCHLforum.com

n5wd wrote:

gdanaher wrote:After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here? Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

The vast majority of districts in the state use the model board policies that are published by the TEA. In those models there is a provision that employees may not bring a weapon onto the premises, with all the standard verbage. So, it's safe to say that all (or almost all) districts have such policies.

Now, whether most districts have added policies prohibiting weapons in cars, I have no idea. I know that my district does not.

She didn't bring it onto the premises as premises is defined in Texas law as the buildings. She only had it in her vehicle.

Mainstream media is at least putting out half hearted stories on the dismissal.

http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-n ... 24031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, here in this case, she is released because of lack of evidence, rather than she never broke the law in the first place.

It is interesting how the news can be slightly slanted to an anti gun liberal bias just with a few words. The press here in Houston is not our friends.

philip964 wrote:Mainstream media is at least putting out half hearted stories on the dismissal.

http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-n ... 24031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, here in this case, she is released because of lack of evidence, rather than she never broke the law in the first place.

It is interesting how the news can be slightly slanted to an anti gun liberal bias just with a few words. The press here in Houston is not our friends.

Now this

The district attorney’s office said it’s not clear whether her car was even on school property, so the charges were dropped.

So, she still has grounds to go back and sue. I sure would anyway.

if her car wasn't even on school property she should be offerred her job back...not that she would want it at this point.

philip964 wrote:Mainstream media is at least putting out half hearted stories on the dismissal.

http://www.khou.com/news/neighborhood-n ... 24031.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, here in this case, she is released because of lack of evidence, rather than she never broke the law in the first place.

It is interesting how the news can be slightly slanted to an anti gun liberal bias just with a few words. The press here in Houston is not our friends.

On Tuesday, I called KPRC and KHOU and informed their news department that charges had been dropped and asked them if they would be running a retraction.

As of last night, I saw nothing on the KPRC website. The article was prominently listed on KHOU, while hidden on a back page on the KTRK site.

I would have preferred, "well, we had an idiot cop and an imbecile asst DA", but I suppose it's better than nothing.

Houston Chronicle comes clean and tells the whole story.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... houtexhcat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see a major lawsuit in the near future.

Can they put up a 30.06 sign to cover the parking lot if it is open to the public, that would make her offense actually illegal? There was some mention of that in the article.

Deckeriv wrote:Can they put up a 30.06 sign to cover the parking lot if it is open to the public, that would make her offense actually illegal? There was some mention of that in the article.

That's a good question to which there is no definitive answer. 30.06 covers property (not premises) and so entry by a CHL holder to a to a 30.06 posted parking lot is forbidden. But there is also the fact that government property cannot (except in a few limited exceptions - government meetings, for example) post a valid 30.06 sign. So a public school cannot post a valid 30.06 sign to their parking lot. It is also possible that a person carrying in a vehicle under MPA would be covered if the parking lot (of a private school or business) is 30.06 posted because MPA deals with premises under a person's control (such as your vehicle) and not property.

There is no case law (that I'm aware of) that deals with this issue. So it's basically a matter of 'concealed is concealed', follow the letter of the law, and be warned that if you get caught you could be the test case.

At least that's been my understanding. YMMV. IANAL. IDNSAAHIELN ( @ RX8er).

Some questions answered:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/HISD-tea ... 85251.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She says the loaded 9mm was in her trunk and not in her glove compartment as previously reported. She says a janitor, who also works at the school, put it there the night before. She claims the gun belongs to him. According to Kemp, he was planning on coming home with her on the day she was arrested. “He was planning on coming home with me Friday to meet my mom, and that was it,” she said.

However, Kemp says his girlfriend found out about it. Kemp claims he got cold feet about the trip to her family’s house and asked to have his gun back.
She says she refused because they were at the school. “He came to school and literally told them the gun was in my car. There was no anonymous tip at all. Of course I didn’t want to give it to him on campus.”

Keith B wrote:

n5wd wrote:

gdanaher wrote:After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here? Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

The vast majority of districts in the state use the model board policies that are published by the TEA. In those models there is a provision that employees may not bring a weapon onto the premises, with all the standard verbage. So, it's safe to say that all (or almost all) districts have such policies.

Now, whether most districts have added policies prohibiting weapons in cars, I have no idea. I know that my district does not.

She didn't bring it onto the premises as premises is defined in Texas law as the buildings. She only had it in her vehicle.

I know she didn't, and that's what I was saying - I apparently quoted the wrong portion of gdanaher's message where he asked how many districts had policies about weapons.

DA: Ex-HISD tutor off the hook on gun charge
By Robert Stanton, Erin Mulvaney | February 7, 2013 | Updated: February 8, 2013 12:10am

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... NewsLetter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tangentially, the local school district just posted a 30.06 sign at the entrance to the employee health clinic. This building is owned by the school district, and is funded by both the city government and the district. Employees of both agencies using thier employee health insurnace can utilize the clinic and it keeps the costs down for everyone. Anyway--the building is owned by the district so a chl holder would be in violation if he entered, sign or no sign. But the sign is posted on a government building/school building. Perhaps the city employees and dependents might not realize it i school property, but the sign seems out of place.

Mike1951 wrote:

She says the loaded 9mm was in her trunk and not in her glove compartment as previously reported. She says a janitor, who also works at the school, put it there the night before. She claims the gun belongs to him. According to Kemp, he was planning on coming home with her on the day she was arrested. “He was planning on coming home with me Friday to meet my mom, and that was it,” she said.

However, Kemp says his girlfriend found out about it.

I'm glad it worked out for her legally but maybe she should rethink her taste in men.