TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

SlowDave wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.

How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.

If it wasn't... then cops carrying on-duty who happened to have a LTC could be charged under 46.035 for carrying at sporting events, in bars, and before Jan 1...open carrying. If you had a CHL before Jan. 1, you could have been charged with open carrying on your own property under 46.035...etc.

If you don't NEED the authority of your LTC to carry legally, then you are not carrying under its authority. I suppose if you really wanted to make sure, you could lock your LTC in your trunk while carrying under MPA, then you couldn't be carrying under its authority because you don't have it on you...

I respectfully disagree. Well, maybe not disagree, but don't believe you've answered the question. When either the CHL/LTC or MPA would cover your actions, I don't see how it is prescribed which authority you're carrying under. I can *hope* that I'm carrying under the MPA rather than CHL/LTC, but I don't know how that would come down in a court of law. And the location of your card is irrelevant, other than if an authority decides that HE/SHE believes you were carrying under the CHL/LTC rather than the MPA and you don't have your card on you, you might get introduced to our legal system.

The policeman situation is different. Since the CHL/LTC would not cover his actions, it is very clear that he is not carrying under it's authority.

ScottDLS wrote:
A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.

How do you know that the CHL is not carrying under the authority of his license? Is it a settled issue that the carrier can "decide" under which authority he is carrying? I always thought this was a gray area.

stingeragent wrote:Slowdave. The law changes on that jan 1st. Now carrying past a 30.06 /07 sign is a class C, 200 fine. Bumps up IF you refuse to leave.

As to your last sentence, if it is posted 30.06 and the company reports you, you get the companies punishment as well as the law. You are not exempt from the law because your an employee. So if they have a 30.06 sign posted, it doesn't matter if your an employee or a customer, you can't carry.

Stingeragent,
Agree completely. I didn't intend to say that they couldn't fire you etc in addition to the legal ramifications. What I meant to say is that they cannot void the 30.06/07 sign. After it's posted, and if I were to enter a building carrying, it's in the legal system for that part and the company can't decide, "well, we were just kidding" no matter what they've said in their announcement or anything else.

But yes, of course they can still deal with you as they wish with respect to employment, etc.

Good to hear about the change to a 30.06/07 violation being class C instead of class A. Is the document with these revisions not released yet? I was referencing https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetf ... CHL-16.pdf and it indicates it's a class A but the cover does say "2013-2014". Seems like if open carry starts in 11 days or so, maybe there should be an updated document and I'm just not finding it?

No, I didn't forget that. That's why I referenced it above (and in the original). But the parking lot law specifically applies to CHLs, not to those carrying under MPA authority. But if I'm reading correctly, the 30.06/30.07 specifically apply to CHL, not MPA. So, in the end, I think both are able to have a gun in the car.

Part of the problem is that I think 30.06/30.07 was written with the intention of posting a building. This place is a large campus with many buildings, roads, and parking lots. So gets a bit messy.

Again, the main big difference is the possibility of getting caught with a weapon in a building being a violation of company policy (for employees) vs. a Class A misdemeanor for everyone.

doncb wrote:

...the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles...Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

If the policy explicitly states that they will continue to allow the possession of a loaded firearm in vehicles, that pretty much says it all. They can't say it's OK in one sentence and then dictate a penalty they have no say in (fine, misdemeanor) in another. Well, they could, but then they look like fools. Maybe they are stating what the penalty "could" be. But for them to say what it will be has no place in a company manual. It isn't up to them. They can tell you what company discipline will be, but beyond that they have no say. Sounds like some idiot in HR is making things up.

HR/The Company is not telling me what the fine is. The company statement is that they are going to post 30.06/30.07. The law tells me that violation of 30.06 is a class A misdemeanor and another section says that a class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4k fine.

So, previously, the whole thing was company policy, per the manual. Now they're going to post 30.06/30.07 and then it's a legal thing outside the company's hands. They can say we're posting this but we'll let you do x, y, and z, but in reality, that's the police and judicial system's decision at that point. The company still gets to decide whether they want to fire you if you're in jail, but yeah...

By my reading, if you post the property, it is posted 30.06. You can't post partial 30.06, and the sign has to be exactly word for word, nothing missing, nothing added. The sign says, in part,

"a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"

So, I may stand corrected about folks carrying under the authority of the MPA, because 30.06 specifically forbids people carrying under CHL authority. I guess maybe that means it does not impact folks without a CHL who are carrying under the MPA. But, no matter what else the company says in their statement, it can't change the law. So, an employee carrying inside a building would definitely be in violation of 30.06/30.07 as far as I can see. You could hope that maybe they wouldn't press charges, but nothing prevents them from it.

I disagree with the poster who said it was a class C misdemeanor unless you are asked to leave and refuse. If you look at 30.06 (a)(2)(A) (as compared to (a)(2)(B)), note that it is A or B. So you commit the offense just by entering the property with proper signage. and per (d), the offense is a Class A misdemeanor. How do you get to the conclusion of it being a class C misdemeanor?

I believe there is an out for a CHL having a weapon in their locked car due to the parking lot law, which by the way, only applies to CHL holders. So, I guess the non-CHLs are okay with gun in the car due to 30.06/30.07 not applying to them at all and CHLs are okay with a gun in the car due to the parking lot law (LC 52.061). But either will be looking at a year +$4k fine if they are found with a firearm in a building. So, again, still big negative changes all brought to us by the open carry folks. :-(
---------------
PC §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.
(c) In this section:
(1) “Entry” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) “License holder” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical
to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by
holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun
law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun”; or
(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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) <snipped

Okay, this is the kind of stupid stuff I was worried about with the advent of open carry.

To date, my company has had a company policy (therefore, applicable to employees only) that you could not carry a firearm into a building nor on your person on the premises, but you could have one in your locked vehicle.

Now, with open carry, they didn't just post 30.07, they posted both 30.07 AND 30.06, but the announcement says they will continue to allow the possession of loaded firearms in vehicles. No big difference, right? Wrong.

• Previously, any non-employee could carry anywhere they wanted on the grounds, including in buildings. Now they can't. (Understanding this was almost surely an oversight, but still a change.)
• Previously, a person carrying in their car under the MPA could have a loaded firearm locked in their car. I don't see how they can post in such a way as will allow this now.
• Previously, a violation of the policy could result in at worst, dismissal from the company. Now, it will result in up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine (Class A misdemeanor)

Luckily, I am a concealed license holder and employee and therefore the main impact to me is the last item, and I don't make a habit of carrying into the building, but on occasion when my car has been dropped off to have work done on it or something similar, there may be situations where it is a possibility. All the way around, 0 benefit, significant deterioration of freedoms.

I think it's valid to attribute this re-inspection of carry laws and companys' positions on same to the passage of the open carry law. In fact, the announcement stated that explicity. Bummed.