Brownwood Courthouse

[wgoforth]

I'm puzzled... I had to go to the courthouse here to get new tags. As I began to enter, there was the generic "no guns of any kind" sign. I just laughed to myself and kept going. HOWEVER, Within a few feet of said door are two security guards and metal detector gates. How is this legal?

I see these signs all over town (even on city utility offices) and just ignore them, but this is pretty hard to ignore.

I spoke to a local newspaper reporter and mentioned to her that she might write an article on CHL, since apparently many businesses here misunderstand chl holders. She told me in no uncertain terms that she was against guns and she has no sympathy for us.

Anyone know anything about the courthouse matter?
Thanks

[LarryH]

Court house is a prohibited area.

Reference is PC 46.02(a)(3) -- I don't have the CHL manual in a format that I can cut-and-paste the actual paragraph.

[wgoforth]

Court house is a prohibited area.

Reference is PC 46.02(a)(3) -- I don't have the CHL manual in a format that I can cut-and-paste the actual paragraph.

I was thinking it was only the courtroom and wherever prisoners may be and not the entire courthouse? I could be wrong though of course.

[joe817]

It's actually in PC 46.03:

"Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1)....
(2)....
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court...
.
.
.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035."

Going to 46.035:
"(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."

So the entire courthouse is off limits for carry.

Hope that helps.

[wgoforth]

It's actually in PC 46.03:

"Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1)....
(2)....
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court...
.
.
.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035."

Going to 46.035:
"(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."

So the entire courthouse is off limits for carry.

Hope that helps.

See thats just it.... the definition says building or PORTION of a building. The entire building isn't a court, only a portion of it. You might have Extension Offices, Drivers License offices, etc. I don't want to be a test case, but it sounds permissible to carry in courthouses, just not courts or their offices to me.
Note too, where forbidden states "courts or offices used by such." The Tax office isn't used by the court. As they say, IANL, and I don't want to be the test case.

[joe817]

Granted the entire building isn't a court, BUT the courts are housed within that building. I think we're reading the same thing from 2 different directions.....
I'm reading "Premises" means a building.... You are reading "PORTION of a building."

If only the courtroom were off limits, I'd think there would be metal detectors at the entrance of the courtroom only, but that's not the case....I think.

Where are the metal detectors located? At the entrances? That's the way it is in Fort Worth. At the entrances. And I guarantee you they turn you around at the metal detector with even a pocket knife....been there and done that.

To me the metal detectors at the entrances are the conceal carry "stop, turn around and disarm" sign.

That's my opinion & I'm sticking with it. BTW this exact same issue comes up about every 3 or 4 months.

[wgoforth]

Granted the entire building isn't a court, BUT the courts are housed within that building. I think we're reading the same thing from 2 different directions.....
I'm reading "Premises" means a building.... You are reading "PORTION of a building."

If only the courtroom were off limits, I'd think there would be metal detectors at the entrance of the courtroom only, but that's not the case....I think.

Where are the metal detectors located? At the entrances? That's the way it is in Fort Worth. At the entrances. And I guarantee you they turn you around at the metal detector with even a pocket knife....been there and done that.

To me the metal detectors at the entrances are the conceal carry "stop, turn around and disarm" sign.

That's my opinion & I'm sticking with it. BTW this exact same issue comes up about every 3 or 4 months.

Correct, the metal detectors are at the front door. But we have to assume they are correct and I'm not so inclined. I appreciate everyone's input, and as I say, I do not wish to test my theory on the ordinance.

I guess I am a bit "gun shy" because half the establishments around here seem to have "no gun of any kind" type signs and I'm about to get aggravated. I realize I can (and do) carry at will regardless (since they do not conform to 30.06 and I'm not telling them so)...but it still displays some local anti gun sentiment...which is odd considering this is THE deer country for the state. I surely would have thought being in small town texas that there would have been a strong pro-second amendment
sentiment in these parts.

[joe817]

Well I have to agree with you there wgoforth. I'm surprised that Brownwood, of all places has that sentiment.

I've been carrying since about mid October, and I carry EVERYWHERE....except the court house, federal buildings in downtown F.W. and post offices. Never give it a thought. I've carried into office buildings that have posted old, outdated invalid "no guns allowed sign". I guess I need to start being more careful and start looking harder.

[chabouk]

The statute is pretty clear that only the offices used by the court are the "premises" that are off limits. The rest of the building is not, and banning guns in the rest of the building is just as illegal as banning in city hall or city parks. The problem, as seen here, is "who's going to test it?"

There's also the practical problem: it's easy to set up security points at the building entrance(s), but it might be almost impossible to control access to the multiple offices and courtrooms once inside the building.

[wgoforth]

The statute is pretty clear that only the offices used by the court are the "premises" that are off limits. The rest of the building is not, and banning guns in the rest of the building is just as illegal as banning in city hall or city parks. The problem, as seen here, is "who's going to test it?"

There's also the practical problem: it's easy to set up security points at the building entrance(s), but it might be almost impossible to control access to the multiple offices and courtrooms once inside the building.

That's my take on the statute as well, but as we all agree.... no one wants to be the test case. And, when there are metal detectors, you for sure will get to take the ride...AND the wording is ambiguous enough that the outcome would be doubtful. I mean even the water dept here has a "no gun sign" (at least it doesn't comply and no firearms). But I don't understand how these city and county entities get away with such. I Thought county property could not legally do that.

I am hoping to slowly change some minds around town. We moved here in Aug. I am trying to get Suzzan Hupp on the local talk show and the eiditor of the newspaper has agreed to print a letter from me to the editor.

[ELB]

In one of the northwestern states == I can't remember if it is Washington or Oregon == courthouses are required to have lockboxes for people to check their guns. This would be a nice addition to the Texas statutes.

I have some fulminations about "test cases" but too tired to rant now....

[srothstein]

That's my take on the statute as well, but as we all agree

Actually, I disagree. I find nothing in the statute to differentiate when to apply the whole building and when to apply the portion part of that clause. Of course, I am holding that in reserve so I can use it for my defense later. One of the best criminal defenses is when a statute is "unconstitutionally vague". If I ever needed to argue this in a court, that would be my argument. I took it to mean just the portion of the building and the officer took it to mean the whole thing. How can I obey the law if we cannot agree on what it is?

The problem is that defense would only work one time. Of course, after that, the court would fix the problem.

[WildBill]

That's my take on the statute as well, but as we all agree

Actually, I disagree. I find nothing in the statute to differentiate when to apply the whole building and when to apply the portion part of that clause. Of course, I am holding that in reserve so I can use it for my defense later. One of the best criminal defenses is when a statute is "unconstitutionally vague". If I ever needed to argue this in a court, that would be my argument. I took it to mean just the portion of the building and the officer took it to mean the whole thing. How can I obey the law if we cannot agree on what it is?

The problem is that defense would only work one time. Of course, after that, the court would fix the problem.

Steve - I hope that you never have to use that argument, especially if you are in Galveston County. You realize that it will be [court] judges who make the final decision.

http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/justice_c ... weapon.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LarryH]

I have to wonder if the fact that the Galveston County Court House is no longer at 722 Moody would invalidate that part of the resolution, or if the Commissioners' Court has since amended the resolution.

I also wonder how far a challenge of constitutionality would go -- but I am not willing to be a test case -- nor am I a lawyer.

[Liberty]

That's my take on the statute as well, but as we all agree

Actually, I disagree. I find nothing in the statute to differentiate when to apply the whole building and when to apply the portion part of that clause. Of course, I am holding that in reserve so I can use it for my defense later. One of the best criminal defenses is when a statute is "unconstitutionally vague". If I ever needed to argue this in a court, that would be my argument. I took it to mean just the portion of the building and the officer took it to mean the whole thing. How can I obey the law if we cannot agree on what it is?

The problem is that defense would only work one time. Of course, after that, the court would fix the problem.

Steve - I hope that you never have to use that argument, especially if you are in Galveston County. You realize that it will be [court] judges who make the final decision.

http://www.co.galveston.tx.us/justice_c ... weapon.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This part seems to indicate that that the County Commisioners actuallly do understand CHL an CHL law

12) That this Order does not apply to:
a) "peace officers" as such term is defined in V.T.C.A., Penal Code §1.07 unless
such peace officer(s) are a plaintiff, a defendant or otherwise actively participating
or emotionally involved in an civil trial or criminal trial or proceeding (e.g. a
witness or a parent of a child or the sibling of a person involved in such a trial or
proceeding);
b) any individual who has a valid defense as set out in Texas Penal Code §§? 46.03,
46.035, or Subchapter H, Chapter 411, of the Texas Government Code.