TexasCHLforum.com

Museum of Natural Science posted but not legit. Letters to small and wording not correct. I wondered though if I was carrying and there was a school field trip or school function would this be in violation?

Nah, you are okay on the school angle. YOU are not on a school sponsored event... you just happen to be at the same place as those on a school sponsored event.

Kalrog wrote:Nah, you are okay on the school angle. YOU are not on a school sponsored event... you just happen to be at the same place as those on a school sponsored event.

That explanation is not consistent with my understanding of the law.

My understanding is that the grounds or the building where a school event is taking place is off limits. Makes sense to me that any place that frequently has school events should be posted to help CHL holders avoid inadvertently violating the law.

However my understanding of then law isn't worth much. Hopefully one of the instructors will respond shortly.

I agree with Frost. That is not my understanding of the law, either. A spectator at a school sponsored competition not on school grounds is not "on" a school sponsored event, but is present and, in my opinion, in violation of the law. We had this discussion at instructors training along with "what constitutes a school or school event". The answer was rather vague, as it hasn't yet been tested in the courts. However, the consensus was that a school is anything that looks like a school, including commercial, vocational, daycare centers, church schools, etc. School events are the same, and you don't have to be a participant; just in attendance.

Essentially, we're told (and I'll echo the sentiment) to err on the side of caution.

Russell wrote:That is also not my understanding of the law. I agree with the above posters saying that it is not the venue you are at that matters, but that the school field trip is there while you are there. If they are there while you are there, you are in violation of the law if you do not leave.

With that said, please add the museum to the postings on Texas3006.com. It will help build the database!

Thanks!

Anyone who posts there should note that the place is city property. the signs aren't at all the entrances, and the signs aren't legal wording and size. In other words its so full of holes as to be meaningless.

I understand that the museum property is owned by the city, but the museum is a private organization leasing the property, is it not?

For instance, Wortham Center is owned by the city, but leased by private organizations who post 30.06.

So I guess the question is, "If a private organization is leasing, borrowing or otherwise has permission to use city property, do they have the right to post a 30.06 during their period of use?"

I would think the answer is yes.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:So I guess the question is, "If a private organization is leasing, borrowing or otherwise has permission to use city property, do they have the right to post a 30.06 during their period of use?"

That has been discussed endlessly here on the forum. With one or two exceptions, everyone agrees that leasing it doesn't matter: the law says that if a piece of property is owned by the city, 30.06 is not valid. Period.

KBCraig wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:So I guess the question is, "If a private organization is leasing, borrowing or otherwise has permission to use city property, do they have the right to post a 30.06 during their period of use?"

That has been discussed endlessly here on the forum. With one or two exceptions, everyone agrees that leasing it doesn't matter: the law says that if a piece of property is owned by the city, 30.06 is not valid. Period.

Has anyone actually contacted DPS for qualification?

This falls under the same conditions, in my opinion, of the 30.06 posted at gun shows held at a city-owned facility. It has been argued that those ARE legitimate. I'm not seeing the difference.

I am also of the opinion that city-owned property cannot have a valid 30.06 posting. However, the real question is whether the Houston police would arrest and the Harris County DA would prosecute.

I'm inclined to think they would.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I am also of the opinion that city-owned property cannot have a valid 30.06 posting. However, the real question is whether the Houston police would arrest and the Harris County DA would prosecute.

I'm inclined to think they would.

Actually, the real question is whether they would have sufficient grounds to obtain a conviction.

I think they would.

Others seem very sure that they wouldn't.

And so it goes.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Actually, the real question is whether they would have sufficient grounds to obtain a conviction.

Before that happens, if it happens, the arrest and prosecution alone would cost the person who was arrested thousands of dollars and possibly other consequences.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Actually, the real question is whether they would have sufficient grounds to obtain a conviction.

Before that happens, if it happens, the arrest and prosecution alone would cost the person who was arrested thousands of dollars and possibly other consequences.

- Jim

I would certainly prefer it if 30.06s were not valid on city-owned property. However, we do see them quite a bit. Whether or not they can obtain a conviction is really not the issue with CHL holders. Win or lose, our CHL will be suspended until a verdict is reached. I don't want to lose my license for a day, much less forever.

Any legal precedents that anyone knows of? I'm going to pose the question to the DPS Legal department. They're pretty good about responding. Often the answer is "We don't know until it's tested in the courts," but at least it's an answer.

You're probably right. However, the 30.06s do exist on government property and arrest is likely. Your acquittal is also likely. At the same time, a suspended CHL, a happy lawyer and a gaping hole in your bank account is almost a sure thing.

I don't want to be the one to test this.