Parking Lots and 30.06

[tacticool]

I got a picture of the signs from the other thread. I think the signs make the entire property posted against CHL guns, including the parking lot, but I'm interested what other people think of this actual example.



larger pic

From the other thread.

So what you're saying then is that, if those 30.06 signs had been posted at the parking lot entrances instead of the building entrances, then I couldn't even park there and secure my weapon in the car?

That's how I read the law. Neither 30.05 nor 30.06 exclude parking lots or other grounds. Both refer to property, which is different than premises, in defining the offense. Furthermore, 30.05 explicitly references forest land and agricultural land, which are obviously not buildings but are property that can be posted.

The ExxonMobil facility at 3120 Buffalo Speedway in Houston has signs at the entrance gate, and I think that makes the whole property inside the gates legally posted, but IANAL.

[C-dub]

I'll bite. Is this a school? Is it a private school?

[srothstein]

I am still of the opinion that 30.06 signs are useless to a person driving. The signs would prohibit a person walking from carrying a pistol with his CHL in the parking lot, but would not apply to a person in a car. If you are in a car, you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL, so 30.06 does not apply.

The brown sign is sufficient notice for 30.05 to apply though, so it would effectively ban carrying in a car for anyone.

And of course, this all assumes it is not government property. The one visible sign about student parking makes me curious. If it is a public school, then 30.06 cannot apply to anyone. I am not sure how the courts would look at 30.05 applying to a person driving a car with a CHL. 30.05 does not apply to a person with a CHL who is carrying under its authority, but it makes no sense to allow it to apply because of the MPA when 30.06 is not allowed to apply.

[tacticool]

It's the ExxonMobil office at 3120 Buffalo Speedway in Houston.

I think the white signs are 30.06 notice and the black sign is 30.05 notice.

[srothstein]

Thanks Tacticool. Given that it is private property, I think the signs effectively prohibit bringing a firearm onto the property without criminal punishment if caught.

[C-dub]

I thought the same thing about the sign if this were a school. There must be a school nearby and they don't want students parking in this lot.

So, private property, I think the sings are enforceable.

[tacticool]

I thought the same thing about the sign if this were a school. There must be a school nearby and they don't want students parking in this lot.

Lamar High School is diagonally across the street. St. John's is down the street.



ExxonMobil office is at SW corner of Alabama and Buffalo Speedway.

[PetrucciFan]

I am still of the opinion that 30.06 signs are useless to a person driving. The signs would prohibit a person walking from carrying a pistol with his CHL in the parking lot, but would not apply to a person in a car. If you are in a car, you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL, so 30.06 does not apply.

The brown sign is sufficient notice for 30.05 to apply though, so it would effectively ban carrying in a car for anyone.

And of course, this all assumes it is not government property. The one visible sign about student parking makes me curious. If it is a public school, then 30.06 cannot apply to anyone. I am not sure how the courts would look at 30.05 applying to a person driving a car with a CHL. 30.05 does not apply to a person with a CHL who is carrying under its authority, but it makes no sense to allow it to apply because of the MPA when 30.06 is not allowed to apply.

I agree with Mr. Rothstein. A CHL basically provides an exemption for something that is normally illegal. Carrying in your car is not illegal, so you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL if you are driving. Therefore, in this instance, 30.06 would have the same meaning to me as it would a person carrying a gun in there car who did not have a CHL...I could drive right by, but could not get out of my car with a gun. IMO. IANAL.

[shootthesheet]

A CHL holder is always carrying under his/her CHL if they have a handgun under their control unless on their own property or that which they control. I know of nothing that changes that fact.

[dicion]

A CHL holder is always carrying under his/her CHL if they have a handgun under their control unless on their own property or that which they control. I know of nothing that changes that fact.

You coined it right there.

The same section under 46.02 that exempts this, exempts a handgun in your vehicle. Having a handgun in your vehicle is the _exact same_ as having a handgun "on their own property or that which they control." under law.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

One is right after the other. Exact same exemption for both.

Driving your car into a 30.06 lot is the exact same, legally, as if you drove your house in there and parked it in a spot.
Can someone else 30.06 Your house? No. They cannot 30.06 your car either.
Once you step outside your car, though, is a completely different matter.

[ScottDLS]

A CHL holder is always carrying under his/her CHL if they have a handgun under their control unless on their own property or that which they control. I know of nothing that changes that fact.

If this is true then a CHL holder who is target shooting or hunting is violating 46.035 by having their handgun exposed. A peace officer who also has a CHL is violating 46.035 when they are working in uniform, as is a licensed security officer in uniform and working. So I would argue that a CHL holder is not carrying under the authority of his license unless he requires that authority to avoid violating another statute.

[shootthesheet]

From my understanding a car is not recognized as "protected property" when it was moved onto public road or another’s property. At that point it is no longer protected.

Maybe a CHL holder could use the MPA as a defense but who knows.

I don't think LE is exempt from off duty CHL carry onto 30.06 posted lots as far as CHL is concerned.

As far as transporting a firearm, that was only allowed directly to and from the range for non-CHL holders until MPA made it legal not to have to lock the unloaded firearm up. Before the MPA the only way to legally transport a handgun in Texas for a non-CHL holder, and some others, was to have it unloaded and locked in a case for the most part.

What is it that allows a CHL holder to shoot a handgun at a range that is not on their property or under their control? I honestly don't know but if that CHL holder is not in control of that property are they not breaking the law?

I think handgun hunting is legal as long as the gun is one typical of the type that is used for hunting. Only whatever that "type" of handgun that is, may be used.

LEOs and Security are not carrying under CHL while on the job so that is not even an issue. Can a LEO legally conceal their BUG or even primary gun? I don't know what gives them the ability to do so legally but I am sure it exists.

If I am wrong I really want to know. What in the law allows a CHL holder to not have to obey CHL related laws when in their vehicle? What allows a CHL holder to expose a handgun at a range that is not owned by them or under their control? What is a "hunting handgun"?

CHL and the MPA are poor reflections of what we could have if we would stand up, speak up and demand our rights. I am sick of the questions. Not because we are here discussing them but because we have one after another that have no clear answer and if one exists it is usually buried in a load of bloated and unconstitutional laws.

Just call me frustrated.

[jester]

I think the white signs are 30.06 notice and the black sign is 30.05 notice.

That sounds reasonable. The 30.06 signs apply to CHL, and the other sign applies to MPA, travelers, unloaded handguns locked in the trunk, rifles, shotguns, and so on.

[dicion]

If I am wrong I really want to know. What in the law allows a CHL holder to not have to obey CHL related laws when in their vehicle? What allows a CHL holder to expose a handgun at a range that is not owned by them or under their control? What is a "hunting handgun"?

Mr Rothstein has already explained this, in very explicit detail:

(copied and pasted from here: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=37592&p=448775#p448775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

-30.06 only applies if you are carrying under CHL.
-CHL is an exception to the application of 46.02
-46.02 says that having a firearm in your vehicle is not illegal, therefore you do not need the exception because it already does not apply, therefore you are not carrying under CHL
-Since you are not carrying under CHL, but rather exempted from 46.02, the 30.06 sign does not apply to you at that time.
-If you were to exit your vehicle with the firearm, then the 30.06 would immediately apply to you, since you are no longer carrying under MPA.

Section 411 Govt code has nothing to do with what you are currently carrying under, but stated rather that if you have a CHL, and a firearm with you at the time (regardless of what you're carrying under), you need to present the CHL if asked for ID. So even though you would need to present the CHL if asked, you are not carrying under it's authority. As Steve also stated, Technically, a LEO with a CHL would also have to present it when asked for ID, even though he doesn't need its authority to carry anywhere. Heck, if asked for ID at a professional football game, he would still be legally required to present his CHL, even though a pro football game if off limits.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33608&p=394755#p394755" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=34080&p=400801#p400801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is simple logic, explained by an officer who deals with upholding laws every day. Now, see my signature for caveats, and of course a Jury can be swung either by a good prosecutor and a bad defender, but logically, that is how it _should_ work.

[ScottDLS]

I see where you're coming from, but the language of 46.035 only applies when carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code". It doesn't make sense that the law was intended to prevent CHL holders from doing something they could legally do without the authority of their CHL.

From my understanding a car is not recognized as "protected property" when it was moved onto public road or another’s property. At that point it is no longer protected.

Maybe a CHL holder could use the MPA as a defense but who knows.

There isn't a definition of "protected property" in the law (46.02). There is simply an exception for property owned/under your control and your motor vehicle. Also this (MPA) is not a Defense, but an exception to 46.02.

I don't think LE is exempt from off duty CHL carry onto 30.06 posted lots as far as CHL is concerned.

They are, for (basically) the same reason that you don't have to carry concealed in your own home when you have your CHL on you. They are not carrying "under the authority of" their CHL so the law does not apply. 46.02 & 46.03 (via 46.15), and 30.05 have a defense or exception for peace officers whether they are on duty or not.

As far as transporting a firearm, that was only allowed directly to and from the range for non-CHL holders until MPA made it legal not to have to lock the unloaded firearm up. Before the MPA the only way to legally transport a handgun in Texas for a non-CHL holder, and some others, was to have it unloaded and locked in a case for the most part.

Prior to MPA it was legal, and still is, to transport a handgun (directly) to and from you residence and motor vehicle and a "sporting activity" (see 46.15). There is no specification that the handgun must be unloaded or concealed. In the case of hunting it is quite common to hunt small game, vermin, rabbits, etc. with larger caliber handguns and generally they are carried unconcealed. I don't see the intent of 46.035 to prohibit a CHL holder from doing something that they could and still can do without a license.

What is it that allows a CHL holder to shoot a handgun at a range that is not on their property or under their control? I honestly don't know but if that CHL holder is not in control of that property are they not breaking the law?

The non-applicability of 46.02 (as detailed in section of 46.15) to sporting activity. This is exemption from the same 46.02 offense that is provided for property owners. There isn't an exemption from 46.035 for property owners either, so I argue that you must read 46.035 to apply only when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL...or you better conceal when carrying in your house and at the range.

I think handgun hunting is legal as long as the gun is one typical of the type that is used for hunting. Only whatever that "type" of handgun that is, may be used.

You are correct, and that is why 46.035 doesn't apply when you are hunting even if you have a CHL...as long as the handgun is typically used in that activity. Target shooting is OK too for CHL holders for the same reason.

LEOs and Security are not carrying under CHL while on the job so that is not even an issue. Can a LEO legally conceal their BUG or even primary gun? I don't know what gives them the ability to do so legally but I am sure it exists.

Correct, nor is a non-LEO carrying under their CHL while hunting, target shooting, traveling, driving in a motor vehicle(w/ gun concealed), or on property under their control. LEO's can carry handguns openly or concealed in Texas because 46.02 and 46.03 prohibitions on carrying a handgun are not applicable to them (46.15). And 46.035 is not applicable to them when they are not carrying under their CHL, even if they have the card with them.

If I am wrong I really want to know. What in the law allows a CHL holder to not have to obey CHL related laws when in their vehicle? What allows a CHL holder to expose a handgun at a range that is not owned by them or under their control? What is a "hunting handgun"?

The same law that allows you to open carry on property under your control and peace officers to open carry...or better wording is "What law prohibits it?" 46.035 doesn't, because in the examples above you are not carrying under the authority of your license. A hunting handgun is one typically used in that sporting activity. Generally I would say your large caliber .357 mag, .44mag and some rifle cartridge chambered guns. Your Raven .25 might not be the best gun to open carry for hog hunting...

CHL and the MPA are poor reflections of what we could have if we would stand up, speak up and demand our rights. I am sick of the questions. Not because we are here discussing them but because we have one after another that have no clear answer and if one exists it is usually buried in a load of bloated and unconstitutional laws.

Just call me frustrated.

I am also frustrated that the laws are not clear and my interpretations are subject to challenge, but I'm reasonably confident that I have it right. I would like to 30.05, 46.02, 46.03, 46.035, and 46.15 clarified and would prefer that Defenses be changed to non-applicability of the statutes.