TX: New law allows guns in vehicles

[HerrGlock]

http://www.herald-democrat.com/articles/2007/08/31/local_news/news01.txt
New law allows guns in vehicles Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


By Mary Jane Farmer
Herald Democrat
A bill that becomes law Saturday allows law-abiding people to carry guns in their vehicles without a concealed handgun permit. House Bill 1815 passed unanimously in both houses of the Texas legislature, after which Governor Rick Perry signed it into law.

HB 1815 was actually passed to clarify some issues left dangling by a similarly-enacted law in 2005, according to Wendy Hopper, Texas Senator Craig Estes’ executive assistant. But, the wording in it still leaves room for improvement, said Grayson County District Attorney Joe Brown.

The 2005 law specified that it was a defense to prosecution against a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon if the person was traveling with a gun. Unsuspecting motorists who believed they were complying with the intent and spirit of the law still faced arrest and UCW charges, and then were forced to spend time and resources hiring an attorney to submit evidence that they qualified for the traveling presumption under the law.

Now, it simply isn’t an offense to carry a gun in a vehicle, but with these three critical qualifiers: (1) the gun must be concealed; (2) the carrier cannot be involved in criminal activities; (3) the carrier cannot be a member of a criminal gang. The fourth rule isn’t mentioned in the bill, but stands from laws on the books for a long time, and that is that no felon can carry or even be around a gun.

Hopper said the 2005 law allowed a person to “carry a gun in his car without the need of a concealed license. However,” she continued, “a number of prosecutors and police departments didn’t like the new law, so they chose to ignore it and continued to arrest and charge people that were abiding by the new law with the UCW charge.”

Texas State Representative Carl Isetts out of the Lubbock area authored HB 1815. His legislative director Matt Creel explained that one major problem involved with the 2005 law was that there was no solid definition of “traveling. D.A.’s were making up that rule.” Creel continued to say that the “defense to prosecution” was problematic with its legal hurdles.

Supporting Isetts in this legislation, Creel said, were the National Rifle Association, the Texas State Rifle Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Creel mentioned many of the differences between the new law allowing people to carry guns inside their vehicles and those who have concealed handgun permits.

Without the permit, Creel said, “You can’t take it (a gun) with you when you go into the grocery store or any other facility. To have a weapon on you, you must be in your home, your car, or a direct route between the two.”

Grayson County Sheriff Keith Gary commented, “Our advice (on enforcing the law) is a person can go from his house to his vehicle and his pistol can be in plain sight, but once in the car, he better put it in his glove box or under the seat. If his gun is exposed, he is under violation.”

Brown pointed out, “One of the stranger effects of this (law) has been that in some situations, a concealed handgun license holder is more restricted in where he can take a gun than an ordinary citizen. For example,” Brown continued to say, “a license holder is prevented by Penal Code Section 46.035 from taking a gun on “the premises of a church,” “in an amusement park” or “on the premises of a sporting event.” However, a non-CDL holder can take a gun in his car to the parking lots of any church, amusement park, or sporting event, as long as that person meets the three criteria of not being a gang member, not otherwise engaged in illegal activity, and keeps the weapon hidden.”

There are some inconstancies in this change in the law which have puzzled prosecutors across the state, Brown said. He went to the Texas District and County Attorney’s Association, the state prosecutors’ trade organization, for more information. The TDCAA pointed out another disparity that may have to be addressed by a court in the future, that of traveling with an “illegal knife” or a “club,” both mentioned in the law as well as handguns.

With regard to an illegal knife or club, Brown said, anyone, including gang members or people committing other crimes, may possess and do not have to conceal an illegal knife or club in their car, the way the law is written now.

“However, there are still places that such weapons cannot be taken by most people. Texas Penal Code section 46.03 makes it a third-degree crime to take a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon to certain places, including school grounds, polling places, courthouses, racetracks, airports, and penal institutions,” Brown said.

Sherman Police Sgt. Bruce Dawsey and Van Alstyne Police Lt. Tim Barnes talked about the law’s possible effect on officer safety during traffic stops. Barnes said that officers are trained to approach every vehicle as if the driver might be armed, and to that end, they will continue with that procedure.

Dawsey expressed concern that a motorist might be concealing his handgun in some place or manner that may even put his own safety in danger, should a police officer stop him. The ideal response for a pistol-packing motorist who has been stopped is to tell the officer he has a gun in, for instance, his glove box. With that information, the officer can proceed in a manner to keep everybody safe. Without it, and the driver reaches into the glove box to get his insurance card, the officer sees the gun and acts or reacts accordingly.

Both officers Dawsey and Barnes expressed concern that road rage incidents might escalate into more violence with guns in the immediate reach of drivers.

Gary agreed. He pointed out that since the adoption years ago of the law regarding concealed handgun licenses, there has only been one case of a licensed gun carrier getting into a road rage situation. “It’s my considered opinion that you may be getting a different breed of cat who might be influenced when it comes to road rage.”

Gary said the Sheriff’s Office is “going to do the best we can to enforce the new laws, protect the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, and prosecute criminals. There is no doubt that this change will put more guns on the street.

“There will undoubtedly be some decisions coming out of the courts which will give us some guidance. I know that the intent of the legislature is to allow law-abiding citizens the ability to have the ability to defend themselves, while trying to keep weapons out of the hands of bad guys. That is a hard line to draw.”

Gary said HB 1815 “doesn’t seem to have been well thought out in the writing of a bill. I’m hoping that the legislature will go back and clean the wording up again, to make better sense of it.

Barnes said that it’s up to the public to keep the law from being repealed. “If it becomes a problem, the law can be taken back. It’s up to the public to determine if they want to keep this law by using their common sense.”

Letters to the Editor:
deldredge@heralddemocrat.com

[PhuzzyGnu]

Originally posted by HerrGlock
http://www.herald-democrat.com/articles/2007/08/31/local_news/news01.txt

Brown pointed out, “One of the stranger effects of this (law) has been that in some situations, a concealed handgun license holder is more restricted in where he can take a gun than an ordinary citizen. For example,” Brown continued to say, “a license holder is prevented by Penal Code Section 46.035 from taking a gun on “the premises of a church,” “in an amusement park” or “on the premises of a sporting event.” However, a non-CDL holder can take a gun in his car to the parking lots of any church, amusement park, or sporting event, as long as that person meets the three criteria of not being a gang member, not otherwise engaged in illegal activity, and keeps the weapon hidden.”


I can not believe this!

Brown is a DA and he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about!

Let him know how you feel at brownj@co.grayson.tx.us but KEEP IT CIVIL!

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its
income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate,
or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking
place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a
handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the
authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless
of whether the handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer
under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security
officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the
security officer's employment, the security officer violates a
provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or
outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for
use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface
area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is
open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not
include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or
walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry
a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)
is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under
Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony
of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical
reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.04, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, § 14.833, eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 976, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

(My letter to Mr. Brown)

I qoute from the Herald-Democrat:

http://www.herald-democrat.com/arti...news/news01.txt

"Brown pointed out, “One of the stranger effects of this (law) has been that in some situations, a concealed handgun license holder is more restricted in where he can take a gun than an ordinary citizen. For example,” Brown continued to say, “a license holder is prevented by Penal Code Section 46.035 from taking a gun on “the premises of a church,” “in an amusement park” or “on the premises of a sporting event.” However, a non-CDL holder can take a gun in his car to the parking lots of any church, amusement park, or sporting event, as long as that person meets the three criteria of not being a gang member, not otherwise engaged in illegal activity, and keeps the weapon hidden.”"

Sir, you are mistaken.

I respectfully point you to § 46.035.(f)(3):
"(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area."

I am a long time CHL holder, and I take my legal responsibility seriously by knowing the myriad laws regarding the responsible carrying of a concealed handgun. § 46.035.(f)(3) provides a CHL holder access to the parking area and adjacent public access of a prohibited location.

Further, may I respectfully point you to § 46.035(i):

"Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

The referenced sections:

"(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.

Therefore unless the location in question -be it a hospital, nursing home, amusement park, church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship- posts a valid Section 30.06 notice, I am free to enter with my CHL and my concealed weapon.

Thank you for your time and I welcome you attention and/or comments on this matter.

Jason XXXXXXXX
Houston, TX

cc: MJFarmer@heralddemocrat.com (Mary Jane Farmer, Herald-Democrat)

-p.

[Pilot]

Considering the new TX law which allows anyone to have a handgun in their car as long as it is out of sight.

I have 2 daughters one is age 16 and the other is age 20. They both have been shooting since they were age 10. I wonder what would happen to my 16 year old daughter if I were to allow her to travel in her vehicle with her G-19 in the center console and then be stopped by an LEO?

[Pakratus]

Originally posted by Pilot
I have 2 daughters one is age 16 and the other is age 20. They both have been shooting since they were age 10. I wonder what would happen to my 16 year old daughter if I were to allow her to travel in her vehicle with her G-19 in the center console and then be stopped by an LEO? I doubt that your 16 year old could keep a handgun in the car. The possible exception is if Texas has a statute that declares that a car is an extension of your home.

You have to keep in mind that some states (texas included) have child access laws. You have to keep guns away from children to a certain age. The only mention I could find (quick search) said that age in Texas was under 17 years old. So, it's possible that when your daughter turns 17, she could possibly keep a handgun in the car.

Now, I did stumble across this bill that was introduced in January 07. I did not trace it at all to see if it passed. It apparently ups the age for the Federal Child Access law to 21!
http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/hr256.html

I am not a lawyer, and didn't even find the actual statute to give an informed opinion. I am just pointing out things to think about or discuss with an actual lawyer.

[HerrGlock]

Originally posted by Pakratus
I am not a lawyer, and didn't even find the actual statute to give an informed opinion. I am just pointing out things to think about or discuss with an actual lawyer.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm#46.13.00
§ 46.13. MAKING A FIREARM ACCESSIBLE TO A CHILD. (a) In
this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of
age.
(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm
that is loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the
chamber.
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable
person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable
firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm
in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm
inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person
knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of
age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people
or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of
this code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged
in an agricultural enterprise.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under
this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor
if the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious
bodily injury to himself or another person.
(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor
before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is
committed if:
(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by
Section 71.003, Family Code, of the child who discharged the
firearm; and
(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the
death of or serious injury to the child.
(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous
position on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign
that contains the following warning in block letters not less than
one inch in height:
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON
AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE
LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."

[mitchshrader]

I am equally concerned with firearms, daughters, cars, and legalities.

I'd like to say that she's competent to defend herself with a handgun, and safer to be able to defend herself with a handgun, and likely to act sensibly and likely to act responsibly, and all of the virtues one wishes to claim for one's teenager..

and, of course, in *MY* case all those things are no more than obvious truth.. .. but about those OTHER people's kids..

i don't think I want the state ignoring the age of responsibility and reason, nor do i want my kid locked up for a year for having a pistol in the console.

there's an iffy spot. how about some sanction IF harm is done, IF parental permission and oversight is lacking?

how about lets make the parent PARTLY liable, not 'responsible' cause you can't do that, but LIABLE, for any HARM a minor child does with a vehicle and handgun?

say, shoots at a train in a fit of dumbness.

we sanction the kid AND THE PARENT for that one, hmm?

at 16. but for HARM.. not 'having the gun' but 'doing a bad thing' .. and if they didn't do anything bad, rolled through a stop sign and got a warning ticket, then the gun ain't a problem and nobody has to write it down anywhere.

Now if they in fact SHOOT that gun for trivial reasons, or THREATEN someone with that gun for trivial reasons, THEN you bounce em like a rubber ball and daddy and momma stand in front of a judge TOO.

hows that? you raise your kids, you arm your kids, you stand good for the actions your minor children take in public..

fair?

[Sharkey]

The D.A. Brown's comments are indeed funny. The new law was created because most elected big city D.A.'s thumbed their nose at the initial law and were prosecuting otherwise innocent people for UCW.

I guess the legislature had the last laugh on this one. I like the law. I don't think it will cause any more problems than when CHL was first introduced in TX.

[TexasFats]

Originally posted by Sharkey
The D.A. Brown's comments are indeed funny. The new law was created because most elected big city D.A.'s thumbed their nose at the initial law and were prosecuting otherwise innocent people for UCW.

I guess the legislature had the last laugh on this one. I like the law. I don't think it will cause any more problems than when CHL was first introduced in TX.

Actually, when I was at the range Monday, one of the employees there mentioned that, at a meeting of DA's from across Texas, about half said that they were STILL going to enforce the old law, in spite of the most recent changes. What that means is that you will still be arrested, your pistol confiscated (with a real hassle to get it back), and go to jail. Of course, the case will be thrown out, but they intend to harass lawful citizens into surrendering their rights, it seems.

[txinvestigator]

Originally posted by TexasFats
Actually, when I was at the range Monday, one of the employees there mentioned that, at a meeting of DA's from across Texas, about half said that they were STILL going to enforce the old law, in spite of the most recent changes. What that means is that you will still be arrested, your pistol confiscated (with a real hassle to get it back), and go to jail. Of course, the case will be thrown out, but they intend to harass lawful citizens into surrendering their rights, it seems.

And how did the range employee know about such a meeting?

Any police officer who knowingly arrests a peson for something that is not illegal can be prosecuted under Federal and state law.

Texas Penal Code
§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant
acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if
he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or
to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment,
or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the
exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity,
knowing his conduct is unlawful;

[talon]

Lets see a 30.06 sign can keep a chl holder out of a parking lot if the parking lot entrance is posted. Yet has no meaning to a non-chl holder with a gun in the car, right ? I admit I really have no ideal how this will work out in case law.


Originally posted by PhuzzyGnu
I can not believe this!

Brown is a DA and he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about!

Let him know how you feel at brownj@co.grayson.tx.us but KEEP IT CIVIL!

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its
income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate,
or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking
place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a
handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the
authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless
of whether the handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer
under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security
officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the
security officer's employment, the security officer violates a
provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or
outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for
use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface
area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is
open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not
include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or
walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry
a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)
is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under
Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony
of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical
reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.04, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, § 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, § 14.833, eff. Sept. 1,
2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 976, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

(My letter to Mr. Brown)

I qoute from the Herald-Democrat:

http://www.herald-democrat.com/arti...news/news01.txt

"Brown pointed out, “One of the stranger effects of this (law) has been that in some situations, a concealed handgun license holder is more restricted in where he can take a gun than an ordinary citizen. For example,” Brown continued to say, “a license holder is prevented by Penal Code Section 46.035 from taking a gun on “the premises of a church,” “in an amusement park” or “on the premises of a sporting event.” However, a non-CDL holder can take a gun in his car to the parking lots of any church, amusement park, or sporting event, as long as that person meets the three criteria of not being a gang member, not otherwise engaged in illegal activity, and keeps the weapon hidden.”"

Sir, you are mistaken.

I respectfully point you to § 46.035.(f)(3):
"(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area."

I am a long time CHL holder, and I take my legal responsibility seriously by knowing the myriad laws regarding the responsible carrying of a concealed handgun. § 46.035.(f)(3) provides a CHL holder access to the parking area and adjacent public access of a prohibited location.

Further, may I respectfully point you to § 46.035(i):

"Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

The referenced sections:

"(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.

Therefore unless the location in question -be it a hospital, nursing home, amusement park, church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship- posts a valid Section 30.06 notice, I am free to enter with my CHL and my concealed weapon.

Thank you for your time and I welcome you attention and/or comments on this matter.

Jason XXXXXXXX
Houston, TX

cc: MJFarmer@heralddemocrat.com (Mary Jane Farmer, Herald-Democrat)

-p.

[kensteele]

i realize that i am not currently located in texas and if it weren't for relatives in texas, i would not comment in this "texas" thread.

but it is clear to me, just like a bunch of other laws in texas, this particular law was not clearly thought thru....just like the law that it is supposed to "clarify." :rofl:

[Texas357]

Texas law does not use "premises" and "property" interchangeably.

Premises does not include sidewalks and parking lots.



I like the new law. The only discrepancy I see is that if I, a CHL holder, have a gun in my car, I have to inform the officer. If someone without a CHL has a gun in their car, they don't have to inform the officer. Unless I miss something.

[talon]

Pardon ? I believe property is the operative word.

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent;

and from the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws booklet;

Q: If I drive to a shopping mall that does not permit handguns, will I be
allowed to park in the parking lot and leave my gun in the car?
A: If the parking lot is not posted with the sign described above,
handguns may be left in the cars. However, if the sign is posted in or
at the entrance to the parking lot, you may not.


So what was your point about property and premises ?



Originally posted by Texas357
Texas law does not use "premises" and "property" interchangeably.

Premises does not include sidewalks and parking lots.



I like the new law. The only discrepancy I see is that if I, a CHL holder, have a gun in my car, I have to inform the officer. If someone without a CHL has a gun in their car, they don't have to inform the officer. Unless I miss something.

[aggiegunner]

It appears the law also exempts one from state knife and club laws in the vehicle as well.

[Texas357]

Originally posted by aggiegunner
It appears the law also exempts one from state knife and club laws in the vehicle as well.

I was always amused that it was legal for me to own "illegal knives", just not to carry them. Now I can have them in my car, but I still can't carry them.

[Texas357]

Originally posted by talon
Pardon ? I believe property is the operative word.

§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent;

and from the Texas Concealed Handgun Laws booklet;

Q: If I drive to a shopping mall that does not permit handguns, will I be
allowed to park in the parking lot and leave my gun in the car?
A: If the parking lot is not posted with the sign described above,
handguns may be left in the cars. However, if the sign is posted in or
at the entrance to the parking lot, you may not.


So what was your point about property and premises ?

Sorry, I didn't get what you were aiming at. How many 30.06 posted parking lots have you seen? For it to be valid, it has to be at every entrance, including sidewalks.

[txinvestigator]

Originally posted by Texas357
Sorry, I didn't get what you were aiming at. How many 30.06 posted parking lots have you seen? For it to be valid, it has to be at every entrance, including sidewalks.

That is not what the law says.

[cjlandry]

Originally posted by txinvestigator
That is not what the law says.

Correct.

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.

Nothing about "every entrance to the parking lot, including sidewalks".

I suppose that "I didn't see it" might be a defense, but if it's truly conspicuous, it would be difficult to get around it.

Regardless, I've seen less than a handful of businesses posted 30.06, and I certainly have yet to see a parking lot posted.

[PhuzzyGnu]

§ 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.


The law is written as such to allow a CHL holder "safe passage" so that they may travel to or from a prohibited location with their weapon.

Schools, airports, sporting events... It doesn't matter. The law is meant to allow you to park and secure your weapon in your car before entering the prohibited premises.

Private application may vary, of course- for instance, a petrochemical plant in Houston may have a secured entrance beyond which all the parking lots are located. If a search was required to enter and the presence of a weapon became known, a situation would arise where the CHL holder received notice and was therefore on the proprety without effective consent.

In this situation, my interpretation is that you would have no defense to prosecution -even though the parking lots and other public access appear to be protected areas under § 46.035(f)(3)- because as long as you remained on the property after being verbally notified you would be there without effective consent. Nothing in the law prevents a private entity from prohibiting entry with a weapon and CHL so long as that private entity gives effective notice as proscribed in 30.06.

"You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" is an apt statement. You could certainly argue the point with the security in the above scenario, but you wouldn't win. "Man with a gun who refuses to leave" may very well be a Code 3 call, and I doubt any of the 40 police officers who would inevitably show up in this situation would be interested in a legal debate.

(excerpted)
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

-p.

[talon]

I think some of the confusion comes in to play because those "premises" like hospitals, churches etc. that can be prohibited also require a 30.06 sign so folks think it only relates to premises but I believe it is clear that property can ideed be posted.

Originally posted by PhuzzyGnu
§ 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.


The law is written as such to allow a CHL holder "safe passage" so that they may travel to or from a prohibited location with their weapon.

Schools, airports, sporting events... It doesn't matter. The law is meant to allow you to park and secure your weapon in your car before entering the prohibited premises.

Private application may vary, of course- for instance, a petrochemical plant in Houston may have a secured entrance beyond which all the parking lots are located. If a search was required to enter and the presence of a weapon became known, a situation would arise where the CHL holder received notice and was therefore on the proprety without effective consent.

In this situation, my interpretation is that you would have no defense to prosecution -even though the parking lots and other public access appear to be protected areas under § 46.035(f)(3)- because as long as you remained on the property after being verbally notified you would be there without effective consent. Nothing in the law prevents a private entity from prohibiting entry with a weapon and CHL so long as that private entity gives effective notice as proscribed in 30.06.

"You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" is an apt statement. You could certainly argue the point with the security in the above scenario, but you wouldn't win. "Man with a gun who refuses to leave" may very well be a Code 3 call, and I doubt any of the 40 police officers who would inevitably show up in this situation would be interested in a legal debate.

(excerpted)
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

-p.

[txinvestigator]

Originally posted by PhuzzyGnu
§ 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.


The law is written as such to allow a CHL holder "safe passage" so that they may travel to or from a prohibited location with their weapon.

Schools, airports, sporting events... It doesn't matter. The law is meant to allow you to park and secure your weapon in your car before entering the prohibited premises.

Private application may vary, of course- for instance, a petrochemical plant in Houston may have a secured entrance beyond which all the parking lots are located. If a search was required to enter and the presence of a weapon became known, a situation would arise where the CHL holder received notice and was therefore on the proprety without effective consent.

In this situation, my interpretation is that you would have no defense to prosecution -even though the parking lots and other public access appear to be protected areas under § 46.035(f)(3)-

-p.

This is a common misunderstanding. The excerpt you pulled from 46.035 defining premises and excluding parking lots, driveways, etc., ONLY applies to those places specifically listed in 46.03 and 46.035.

You missed this;

Texas Penal Code 46.035
(f) In this section:

(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.



A private business not listed in 46.03 or 46.035 can post a 30.06 sign at the entrance to a parking lot, and the parking lot then falls under 30.06, and it is illegal to carry into the parking lot.

In fact, a private school can post 30.06 at the parking lot and CHL carry into the parking lot is then illegal.

[PhuzzyGnu]

Originally posted by txinvestigator
A private business not listed in 46.03 or 46.035 can post a 30.06 sign at the entrance to a parking lot, and the parking lot then falls under 30.06, and it is illegal to carry into the parking lot.

In fact, a private school can post 30.06 at the parking lot and CHL carry into the parking lot is then illegal.

Thank you for the clarification. That is why I value active discussions like this.

In 46.03, I see "(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035." Also, I noted in the subsection regarding schools (46.03 (a)(1))the language "whether the school or educational institution is public or private"

Your info about a PRIVATE school being able to post 30.06 to parking lots is interesting in that the private interests trump other parts of the penal code. I was prompted to dig around a little and found footnote #4 in Texas Attorney General opinion DM-363:

"4. As the witness stated, the term "premises" is usually defined more broadly to include not only a building but also the lot or land under the control of the business owner or upon which the building is located. See, e.g., J.B. Advertising, Inc. v. Sign Bd. of Appeals, 883 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex. App.-- Eastland 1994, writ denied); Alco. Bev. Code § 11.49 (defining "premises" for purposes of Alcoholic Beverage Code); Attorney General Opinion H-22 (1973) at 3. Although the legislature gave term "premises" a different meaning for purposes of section 46.035, as discussed below we believe that Senate Bill 60 does not affect the rights of a private property owner to prohibit the carrying of handguns on their private property. This could include privately owned driveways, streets, sidewalks or walkways, parking lots, parking garages, and other parking areas. For this reason, conduct which is not an offense under section 46.035 of the Penal Code because it occurs at a place excluded from the definition of the term "premises" may be an offense under section 30.05 of the Penal Code. See infra pages 5-9."

An interesting opinion somewhat related to the discussion is in the Texas Attorney General's opinion letter 96-009 (https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo48morales/lo96-009.htm) which addressed the discrepancy of 46.03 v. 46.035 before it was amended in 1997 to include the "premises" language referring to 46.035.

Further, I find the lack of a description of "property" in 30.06 frustrating. What a tangled web the Penal Code weaves.

One last thing: Are you aware of any case law regarding a CHL holder who was charged with a 30.06 violation and used as a defense that the 30.06 signage was improperly displayed per 30.06 (B)(i)(ii)(iii)? We so often see a comment to the effect of "the sign wasn't legal, so I ignored it."

-p.

[txinvestigator]

Originally posted by PhuzzyGnu
Thank you for the clarification. That is why I value active discussions like this.

In 46.03, I see "(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035." Also, I noted in the subsection regarding schools (46.03 (a)(1))the language "whether the school or educational institution is public or private"

Your info about a PRIVATE school being able to post 30.06 to parking lots is interesting in that the private interests trump other parts of the penal code. I was prompted to dig around a little and found footnote #4 in Texas Attorney General opinion DM-363:

"4. As the witness stated, the term "premises" is usually defined more broadly to include not only a building but also the lot or land under the control of the business owner or upon which the building is located. See, e.g., J.B. Advertising, Inc. v. Sign Bd. of Appeals, 883 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex. App.-- Eastland 1994, writ denied); Alco. Bev. Code § 11.49 (defining "premises" for purposes of Alcoholic Beverage Code); Attorney General Opinion H-22 (1973) at 3. Although the legislature gave term "premises" a different meaning for purposes of section 46.035, as discussed below we believe that Senate Bill 60 does not affect the rights of a private property owner to prohibit the carrying of handguns on their private property. This could include privately owned driveways, streets, sidewalks or walkways, parking lots, parking garages, and other parking areas. For this reason, conduct which is not an offense under section 46.035 of the Penal Code because it occurs at a place excluded from the definition of the term "premises" may be an offense under section 30.05 of the Penal Code. See infra pages 5-9."

An interesting opinion somewhat related to the discussion is in the Texas Attorney General's opinion letter 96-009 (https://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/lo48morales/lo96-009.htm) which addressed the discrepancy of 46.03 v. 46.035 before it was amended in 1997 to include the "premises" language referring to 46.035.

Further, I find the lack of a description of "property" in 30.06 frustrating. What a tangled web the Penal Code weaves.

One last thing: Are you aware of any case law regarding a CHL holder who was charged with a 30.06 violation and used as a defense that the 30.06 signage was improperly displayed per 30.06 (B)(i)(ii)(iii)? We so often see a comment to the effect of "the sign wasn't legal, so I ignored it."

-p.

When the penal code is silent on the definition of a word, the accepted definition is used. I usually use Merriam Webster online, and dictionary dot com. The two are usually identical.

Regarding case law, I am not aware of any cases, but that does not mean there is none.

That was an interesting AG opinion you found.

[Dragster]

Originally posted by txinvestigator
When the penal code is silent on the definition of a word, the accepted definition is used. I usually use Merriam Webster online, and dictionary dot com. The two are usually identical.

Regarding case law, I am not aware of any cases, but that does not mean there is none.

That was an interesting AG opinion you found. I'd hope the Texas AG could appoint you as prosecutor when we have to take these rogue DAs and LEOs to court for false arrest of innocent citizens.

You seem to know or understand much more of law than these elected officials. I'd hire you in a minute!

Since, according to the President, we are at war on terrorism, why not let the states call to order a militia to protect us from such terrorism. Then we, if not felons, could all sign up and not worry about how the gun laws are worded. We could even have open carry.:wavey: