2013 Legislative Section is now open

[jmra]

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.

Apples and oranges.

I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?

Very simple to me. It's the same reason folks are allowed to carry in their car unlicensed under MPA, for most practical purposes your car is an extension of your home. Your briefcase is not.

Of course ultimately the law is the law and it doesn't really matter what you or I think should be or shouldn't be. What matters is what can and can not be passed legislatively.

[MasterOfNone]

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.

Apples and oranges.

I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?

Very simple to me. It's the same reason folks are allowed to carry in their car unlicensed under MPA, for most practical purposes your car is an extension of your home. Your briefcase is not.

Of course ultimately the law is the law and it doesn't really matter what you or I think should be or shouldn't be. What matters is what can and can not be passed legislatively.

But if a non-CHL (for simplicity) has a gun in his car under MPA and he drives it onto private property that is clearly posted that firearms are prohibited on the property, has he committed trespassing under 30.05?

[jmra]

MasterOfNone,
Yes, but I was speaking in general terms. Without MPA only CHLs would be able to carry in a car at all. The only reason MPA passed was because it was sold as your car being more than just a container in which things are stored. It passed because most people believe that your car is an extension of your home.

Again, the reality here is not what "should be" or "shouldn't be". It's about what can pass and what won't pass.

[warhorse10_9]

On the campus carry issue, can we try to keep the discussion focused on personal protection rather than mass shootings. I think all the emphasis that this was about protection during a mass shooting is one of the things that derailed the bill last session. The focus should be kept squarely on smaller everyday acts of violence that campus carry would allow CHL holders to protect themselves from.

That didn't help in Nevada last session, although the introduction of a CHL holder who was raped on campus may have been too late in the session to have an impact.

I do think it's a good idea to emphasize the personal protection aspect of it, but the other side is going to point to the low crime statistics to counter that argument, so you have to be prepared to counter that as well. I think the best approach is to point out that tolerating even one rape is one too many, and the police cannot be everywhere, as is proven by the fact that rapes (and other crimes) still do occur. It's perfectly fine for a student to depend on police if that's their choice, but we should be denying a student the choice to defend themselves simply because they are in a campus environment.

The left is very good at playing on people's emotions. It's time for the right to start using that weapon against them and demonstrate, through personal examples, how denying people their rights has very real consequences that can be life altering or even life destroying.

I completely agree with you baldeagle. Now lets make sure the legislators and I hate to use the word but lobbyists for campus carry are on the same page.

[smoothoperator]

Last session most campus carry supporters talked about defense from common criminals. It was the antis who focused on mass shootings, even though prohibiting guns has never stopped mass murderers and terrorists. Since emotional rants worked so well for civil rights opponents last time, we should expect them to do it again.

[warhorse10_9]

Last session most campus carry supporters talked about defense from common criminals. It was the antis who focused on mass shootings, even though prohibiting guns has never stopped mass murderers and terrorists. Since emotional rants worked so well for civil rights opponents last time, we should expect them to do it again.

Yes, some of the individuals who testified for the laws remained focused on personal defense. The problem is that some of the legislators pushing for campus carry made mass shootings (and their prevention via campus carry) one of their talking points. This fed the opponents of the movement with ammunition to say "Those don't happen often, it is not worth the risk." This is the message that was spread by the media, this is the gut reaction anyone who is not familiar with carrying a concealed weapon for yours and your loved one's protection will have. I know this because, session before last, I was one of those people. I didn't actively oppose campus carry then, but I certainly was not supportive of it.

Let's not give the anti's the chance to have this ammunition. Let's make sure the legislators and everyone lobbying for campus carry never even makes mass shootings a talking point. They are far too rare and just lend too much ammo to the other side to feed on the gut reactions of most people.

[TexasCajun]

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.

Apples and oranges.

I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?

Very simple to me. It's the same reason folks are allowed to carry in their car unlicensed under MPA, for most practical purposes your car is an extension of your home. Your briefcase is not.

Of course ultimately the law is the law and it doesn't really matter what you or I think should be or shouldn't be. What matters is what can and can not be passed legislatively.

But if a non-CHL (for simplicity) has a gun in his car under MPA and he drives it onto private property that is clearly posted that firearms are prohibited on the property, has he committed trespassing under 30.05?

As I understand it, the MPA treats your car as an extension of your home. With the parking lot law, the legislature said that an employer cannot revoke your property rights when you drive your car into their parking lot (unless the employer's business falls into one of the specific categories where a weapon in a vehicle can be prohibited). 30.06, however gives the employer control over their premises - that being defined as the actual building and specifically excluding parking lots & sidewalks.

[canvasbck]

IANAL but I don't think that the parking lot law was an extension of MPA. For petrochemical facilities and refineries, employees must have a CHL to store firearms in their vehicle outside of the secure area of the facility. Carrying under MPA is not sufficient for bringing a firearm into the parking lot of a petrochemical/refining facility under the parking lot law.

The property rights of the facility owner also supercede the ability for non-employees to carry, such as contractors, ect. They are NOT protected by the parking lot law.

[TexasCajun]

Thanks for clarifying, canvasbck. I didn't mean to imply that the parking lot law was an extension of the MPA. But there is a relationship between the two, and that was what I was trying to demonstrate. I believe that the way that Texas laws are set-up, all of us usually transition from one part of the penal code to another within the same trip or outing. For example, I leave for work from my home armed under the so-called castle doctrine (walking from my front door down my driveway), once I get to the street to get into my car I'm armed under the provisions of my CHL, and then I'm driving to work under the MPA. The CHL takes over if I stop anywhere in between home and work. Once I pull into the parking lot at work the Parking Lot Law takes over (as my employer prohibits all weapons on the premises).

I have to admit that I'm not as well versed in the provisions for petro-chem facilities as I should be. Since I don't routinely go to those faclities, I haven't made as many mental notes concerning them. As such, I intentionally tried to be vague on that matter. Thanks again for the clarification there.

[srothstein]

As I understand it, the MPA treats your car as an extension of your home. With the parking lot law, the legislature said that an employer cannot revoke your property rights when you drive your car into their parking lot (unless the employer's business falls into one of the specific categories where a weapon in a vehicle can be prohibited). 30.06, however gives the employer control over their premises - that being defined as the actual building and specifically excluding parking lots & sidewalks.

I have seen several people who have stated that they think of the car as an extension of their home. Texas law does not treat it that way, especially under the MPA. Note that in your home, you may carry your weapon openly or concealed but in your car it must be concealed. Even a gang member may have a gun in his home (assuming not a convicted felon) and you may be committing other crimes in your and still legally have the gun there. Both of those restrictions do apply to your car. As a final piece of evidence that the car is not legally considered an extension of your home, I will point out that I can possess a switchblade knife in my home but I cannot carry it in the car.

This leads me back to the belief that the car is a container that we have decided to give you special privileges with, overriding property owner rights when we do not for other containers.

But if someone wanted to justify this a different way, you might point out that I can secure the gun in the car and leave it outside the buildings, while I cannot do the same with a briefcase. Thus the parking lot law allows me to protect myself in other locations (such as on the way to or from work) while minimally overriding the property rights that mandating allowance of other containers would not.

My point in this is that we can justify the difference without going for made up arguments that the law would not recognize.

[jmra]

As I understand it, the MPA treats your car as an extension of your home. With the parking lot law, the legislature said that an employer cannot revoke your property rights when you drive your car into their parking lot (unless the employer's business falls into one of the specific categories where a weapon in a vehicle can be prohibited). 30.06, however gives the employer control over their premises - that being defined as the actual building and specifically excluding parking lots & sidewalks.

I have seen several people who have stated that they think of the car as an extension of their home. Texas law does not treat it that way, especially under the MPA. Note that in your home, you may carry your weapon openly or concealed but in your car it must be concealed. Even a gang member may have a gun in his home (assuming not a convicted felon) and you may be committing other crimes in your and still legally have the gun there. Both of those restrictions do apply to your car. As a final piece of evidence that the car is not legally considered an extension of your home, I will point out that I can possess a switchblade knife in my home but I cannot carry it in the car.

This leads me back to the belief that the car is a container that we have decided to give you special privileges with, overriding property owner rights when we do not for other containers.

But if someone wanted to justify this a different way, you might point out that I can secure the gun in the car and leave it outside the buildings, while I cannot do the same with a briefcase. Thus the parking lot law allows me to protect myself in other locations (such as on the way to or from work) while minimally overriding the property rights that mandating allowance of other containers would not.

My point in this is that we can justify the difference without going for made up arguments that the law would not recognize.

Of course you do not have all of the rights in your car that you have in your home. That is why I used the phrase "for most practical purposes". If the car where considered no more than a "container" then MPA would never have passed.

[TexasCajun]

And once again, it's been proven why I should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Thanks for the further clarification, srothstein. It's possible that I read or heard that the MPA was had originated with the idea the the car should be treated as an extension of the home. But I'm now not so sure about my recollection.

[canvasbck]

It is commonly stated that MPA was an extension of the castle docterine, although I do not believe that is the case anywhere in the Codes.

[pcgizzmo]

This really isn't gun related but it would be nice if someone could clean up the knife laws. Seems it would be really easy to do. I think it's really stupid that I have a CHL but can't walk down the street w/a fixed blade knife or a switchblade.