TexasCHLforum.com

Douva wrote:PC Sec. 46.03(a)(1) [emphasis added]:

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) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

The wording of the law is ambiguous, to say the least. Charles has made the case that, due to context, this law could not be enforced against someone on non-school property; however, that is not what DPS is currently teaching new instructors, and in turn, that is not what a lot of new instructors are teaching their students. Equally troubling is the fact that the managers of certain public venues have used this law as an excuse to improperly post 30.06 signs on the premises.

PC Sec. 46.03(a)(1) is a poorly worded law that causes unneeded confusion, and it needs to be clarified.

When I took the CHL instructor course and when we had to renew with DPS in Austin, we were never told that "activity grounds" included property not owned by the school. There wasn't even a hint that this was the case.

You say I make a case "based upon context;" no, I stated Texas law. One cannot "authorize" another person to carry firearms on property they don't control. That's not based upon context, it's the law. You must have "authority" to "authorize." There's nothing ambiguous about that. The express language of §46.03(a)(1) reads ". . . unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution." The Code doesn't read "waives this prohibition," it uses the term "authorize" and that has legal significance.

[Edited to remove comments about specific bill(s).]

As I've said before, because of growing number of erroneous statements about the scope of "activity grounds," I believe the language should be clarified so that it is even more clear.

Chas.

MeMelYup wrote:Isn't that why they claim to put 30.06 signs at zoo's? "For school functions."

I don't know of any zoos that continue to do this now, but that was the case in the past. The claim was bogus. I agree that the code should be amended, not to change current law, but to clarify current law so that intellectually dishonest people cannot continue to intimidate CHL's. HB1298 in its current form is not the way to go about it. Look for a committee substitute.

Chas.

TrueFlog wrote:So HB 1298 would make it legal to carry at a location where a school is having a field trip (eg. zoo, aquarium, etc.) provided that the CHL holder is not participating in the field trip? That's a step in the right direction, but it seems like an awfully small step. Am I missing something?

It already is legal.

Chas.

I strongly recommend NOT weighing in on HB1298 at this time. I cannot say more now.

Chas.