SB 321 Parking lot bill.

[sjfcontrol]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

[A-R]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

And here's the really messed up part. What about a gunbusters sign on a parking lot or parking garage, which us CHLees would reasonably just ignore? Could someone carrying in car under MPA be guilty of trespassing under 30.05?

Gee, where do I remember having this problem before? Oh yeah, back in the mid-1990s before 30.06 was written.

Amazing how getting one law right (MPA) opens up a whole new bunch of laws that are now wrong.

[srothstein]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

[sjfcontrol]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

I'd really like to believe that, but that's not my understanding from other threads. If that's the case, then 30.06 posting parking lots is irrelevant(as long as the firearm never leaves the vehicle), because 30.06 only applies to CHLs, not people carrying under MPA.

Other threads have asserted that if you have a CHL -- you're always carrying under it's authority.

[cbr600]

On the other hand, does apply to people carrying under MPA. Pick your poison.

On the gripping hand, it seems SB 321 would only protect employees - not customers, vendors, contractors, etc.

[srothstein]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

I'd really like to believe that, but that's not my understanding from other threads. If that's the case, then 30.06 posting parking lots is irrelevant(as long as the firearm never leaves the vehicle), because 30.06 only applies to CHLs, not people carrying under MPA.

Other threads have asserted that if you have a CHL -- you're always carrying under it's authority.

I have posted this before in some of those threads also. I know some people believe you are always carrying under your CHL but then they cannot explain what allows a cop with a CHL to carry his pistol openly. I use that example just to show that a CHL is not always the overriding authority.

Consider this logic and see how you feel. PC 46.02 makes it illegal to carry a gun if you are not in a car. A CHL is an exception to 46.02, making it legal to carry. But an exception to a law can only come into play if the act is otherwise illegal. Since carrying in a car is not illegal, the exception does not apply.

And to see that the legislature understands this logic and meant it this way, look at how they worded both PC 30.06 and government code 411.205. The government code says you must show your CHL anytime you have a gun on or about your person and are asked for ID. 30.06 applies only when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. Clearly there were two different circumstances intended.

And for all the lurkers, remember that this is not legal advice, just an academic discussion of opinions. An officer or judge may have a different opinion on how the law should be applied. Until someone is arrested, convicted, and gets the case to an appeals court, we will not have a true precedent to say what the law is.

[Pawpaw]

On the other hand, does apply to people carrying under MPA.

I can't find that anywhere in the statutes. Can you give me the reference?

[cbr600]

I can't find that anywhere in the statutes. Can you give me the reference?

I don't see MPA as a defense to prosecution in Section 30.05 of the Texas Penal Code. However, it's possible I overlooked it - IANAL.

[Tim the Teacher]

Holding a CHL , I currently carry in my car in the school parking lot. There is no sign prohibiting entry to the lot and no language in the school district handbook except prohibition for bringing it on school premises...(i.e. building or portion of building.) According to what I have been taught and read I am still legal. Someone correct me if I'm not?

[jacobsd8195]

Holding a CHL , I currently carry in my car in the school parking lot. There is no sign prohibiting entry to the lot and no language in the school district handbook except prohibition for bringing it on school premises...(i.e. building or portion of building.) According to what I have been taught and read I am still legal. Someone correct me if I'm not?

Here is the wording from my district: WEAPONS PROHIBITED "The District prohibits the use, possession, or display of any firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon, as defined at FNCG, on all District property at all times." Now, this is a local policy under the heading Community Relations: Conduct on School Premises. However, it states in the Employee Standards of Conduct that violations of any policies may result in disciplinary action.

It is not a legal issue... they couldn't arrest an employee that had an otherwise legally concealed firearm in their vehicle, but they could fire them.

[srothstein]

Tim,

You are legal as far as I can tell from the law. But the definition of premises you cite is the legal definition for only one part of the law. It is not necessarily the definition of premises intended in the employees manual. I mention this just so you know that you could be fired for having it in your car if they claim the definition of premises is any property the school district owns. I am sure you were aware of this already, but I mention it also for the lurkers who might misunderstand how the definition of premises might be applied.

[Tim the Teacher]

Thanks for your input.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

Chas.

Sec. 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 . . .

[artx]

It seems perversely strange to me that a person LOSES rights by acquiring a license. Because a person has a CHL, he loses the protections given by the MPA. That's just wrong. A license holder should be able to claim that the firearm in his vehicle is legal under the MPA regardless of 30.06 postings for the parking lot. (Making parking lot postings irrelevant.)

It is wrong. You are always covered under MPA if you are in a car. 30.06 signs only apply when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If you are in a car, you are not using the authority of the CHL because you are not violating the law without it.

Chas.

Sec. 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 . . .

Sorry if this gets off topic a bit - So it sounds like you could conceivably drive into a property posted 30.06 at parking lot entrance, park, leave the gun in the car, and be legal (assuming you are in compliance with all MPA requirements).

How about if you then exited the vehicle with your handgun at the same property? If there is no 30.06 sign at the actual building are you legal? Or because you passed one, are you only ok if your firearm stays in the car?

In any case, I'm super excited about SB321 and plan on contacting everyone under the sun via letters this coming week.

[Keith B]

Sorry if this gets off topic a bit - So it sounds like you could conceivably drive into a property posted 30.06 at parking lot entrance, park, leave the gun in the car, and be legal (assuming you are in compliance with all MPA requirements).

How about if you then exited the vehicle with your handgun at the same property? If there is no 30.06 sign at the actual building are you legal? Or because you passed one, are you only ok if your firearm stays in the car?

In any case, I'm super excited about SB321 and plan on contacting everyone under the sun via letters this coming week.

The 30.06 is valid on the property for a CHL holder, and the only exemption MPA gives you is in the car or travel to from the vehicle to your home or place of buinsess. So unless you had to carry across the parking lot into your place of business, the 30.06 would be in effect, so you can't remove the gun from the vehicle.