Penal Code §46.03 and Carrying in Courthouses

[Skiprr]

Note: through fault wholly my own, I ran someone else's thread way off topic, so have moved the posts here to give them a proper home.

Hmmm... It's my understanding that courthouses are not generally off-limits, just those areas used directly by the court - the judge's office, the court room, places like that.

Our courthouse is posted in those areas, the rest of the building I can go au naturel, by which I mean my natural, armed state.

I must conceal well. Nobody ever notices the gun.

I think that's dependent upon your own definition of the term "courthouse," because that term is not used anywhere in the penal code. I'm guessing that you're using it to mean a multi-purpose government building where there also happen to be offices/rooms utilized by the court. And in that case, you're probably correct.

Just to be clear, TPC §46.03 reads:

(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)...

(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...

My personal opinion is that there remains a little bit of gray area here because of the conjunction "or" in item 3. If a state or local government defines the entire building as a court, then the whole thing would be statutorily off limits unless decided otherwise. I don't have personal experience here, but I could see some smaller counties having a single building the entirety of which it considers to be a court, even though some other functions may take place there.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any provisions/definitions in the Government Code to explicitly describe what is meant by the word "court"; a whole bunch of clarifications about municipal courts, district courts, trial courts, appellate courts, etc., but nothing that defines the physical properties of a "court."

In large metropolitan areas, the opposite is generally true and the "offices utilized by the court" comes into play. For example, the Harris County jury assembly building is only for the logistical processing of prospective jurors; there is no court or judge's chambers in the building, and the building is not directly attached to any other in which there is a court or judge's chambers (if you don't count blocks-long underground tunnels). But the court utilizes the assembly building, and that's where reporting prospective jurors are processed and go through metal detectors. Subsequent reporting to an actual "court" is under escort of one or more bailiffs.

Edited to Add: Just to say I was speaking in generalities. Since the courthouse in treadlightly's area has some areas posted for no-carry, and other areas not, I would assume that's a clear indication that the government entity doesn't consider that entire building to be a "court."

[JALLEN]

The AG sees it differently. Look at the online letters from the AG.

That is the precise situation here with respect to the 3 "courthouse" buildings we have submitted complaints to the AG about. There are courtrooms in each building, along with other functions, clerk, treasurer, building department etc.

That is the issue in Austin, recently sued, as well.

Those are pending.

[Skiprr]

The AG sees it differently. Look at the online letters from the AG.

That is the precise situation here with respect to the 3 "courthouse" buildings we have submitted complaints to the AG about. There are courtrooms in each building, along with other functions, clerk, treasurer, building department etc.

That is the issue in Austin, recently sued, as well.

Those are pending.

I believe my mistake was to take the thread on a tangent. I was not responding to the OP, but to treadlightly's observation that there was a clear dichotomy between a "courthouse" and an area expressly used for the court's business. If that's what you're referring to, then I'm still somewhat in the dark.

I have no idea where treadlightly lives, so my hypothesis was, essentially, the "Tinytown Municipal Courthouse" in Faraway County, Texas. There is a room where jurors gather for processing pretrial, and because the building is so small, the Faraway County Tax Assessor Collector has a window inside the same room where folks--non-jurors--can come to pay taxes. There is no physical separation or reasonably possible segregation of security between the jurors and the folks simply coming to pay taxes. That's the only function inside the Tinytown Municipal Courthouse that doesn't deal directly with business of the court.

Hypothetical two: Friendly City, Texas, boasts the three-room "Friendly City Courthouse." It has a courtroom for hearings, judge's quarters, and a room that's used by court administrative staff and records. Friendly City has no real place for citizens to meet indoors, so the court allows--on afternoons when there are no cases to be heard or the court's business is completed--the local chamber of commerce and Kiwanis Club to gather and meet in the courtroom. With only one law enforcement officer in town, the notion of granting and policing temporary permission under TPC §46.03(a)(3) for the Kiwanis to carry is more than impractical.

The only AG opinion I remembered where he addressed the "courthouse" issue in generalities (meaning the filed request did not contain situation-specific details about the premises and uses involved) was KP-0047 (and I had to go look that up 'cause I hadn't read it in a long while).

In that December opinion, AG Paxton wrote:

The Legislature has not clearly demarcated, or established, a precise boundary in a building or portion of a building at which handguns are prohibited or permitted. Yet, it has established an enforcement scheme that can be properly effectuated only where such a boundary is determined and definitive. Similarly, the Legislature has not provided the Attorney General's Office with specific authority to make rules governing this enforcement scheme. While the outside limits of subsection 46.03(a)(3) may be unclear, at the very least it can be said that the Legislature intended to prohibit concealed handguns from the rooms that house government courts and offices central to the business of the courts.

Emphasis mine. In the summary to that opinion, he wrote:

The premises of a "government court or office utilized by the court" means a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court. The responsible authority that would notify license holders of their inability to carry on the respective premises must make the determination of which government courtrooms and offices are essential to the operation of the government court, in consultation with the government court.

So I guess, for the time being, I stand by my hypotheticals as being reasonable and probably defensible if the local municipal court is challenged under GC §411.209. That said, the "Tinytown Municipal Courthouse" in Faraway County is a vastly different situation than, say, the Austin City Hall building.

[JALLEN]

The AG sees it differently. Look at the online letters from the AG.

That is the precise situation here with respect to the 3 "courthouse" buildings we have submitted complaints to the AG about. There are courtrooms in each building, along with other functions, clerk, treasurer, building department etc.

That is the issue in Austin, recently sued, as well.

Those are pending.

I believe my mistake was to take the thread on a tangent. I was not responding to the OP, but to treadlightly's observation that there was a clear dichotomy between a "courthouse" and an area expressly used for the court's business. If that's what you're referring to, then I'm still somewhat in the dark.

I have no idea where treadlightly lives, so my hypothesis was, essentially, the "Tinytown Municipal Courthouse" in Faraway County, Texas. There is a room where jurors gather for processing pretrial, and because the building is so small, the Faraway County Tax Assessor Collector has a window inside the same room where folks--non-jurors--can come to pay taxes. There is no physical separation or reasonably possible segregation of security between the jurors and the folks simply coming to pay taxes. That's the only function inside the Tinytown Municipal Courthouse that doesn't deal directly with business of the court.

Hypothetical two: Friendly City, Texas, boasts the three-room "Friendly City Courthouse." It has a courtroom for hearings, judge's quarters, and a room that's used by court administrative staff and records. Friendly City has no real place for citizens to meet indoors, so the court allows--on afternoons when there are no cases to be heard or the court's business is completed--the local chamber of commerce and Kiwanis Club to gather and meet in the courtroom. With only one law enforcement officer in town, the notion of granting and policing temporary permission under TPC §46.03(3) for the Kiwanis to carry is more than impractical.

The only AG opinion I remembered where he addressed the "courthouse" issue in generalities (meaning the filed request did not contain situation-specific details about the premises and uses involved) was KP-0047 (and I had to go look that up 'cause I hadn't read it in a long while).

............

So I guess, for the time being, I stand by my hypotheticals as being reasonable and probably defensible if the local municipal court is challenged under GC §411.209. That said, the "Tinytown Municipal Courthouse" in Faraway County is a vastly different situation than, say, the Austin City Hall building.

I refer you to the letter addressed to the County Judge of Brazos County dated March 30, 2016 (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf) as an example of the situation, not hypothetical which seems to brightline the interpretation the AG is going with in these situations.

[Skiprr]

I refer you to the letter addressed to the County Judge of Brazos County dated March 30, 2016 (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... thouse.pdf) as an example of the situation, not hypothetical which seems to brightline the interpretation the AG is going with in these situations.

You made my point for me...via an opinion that internally referenced, three times, the very one I cited.

The Brazos County instance is detailed in describing a specific (though no doubt common) "multi-story, multipurpose building that houses the district courts and county courts-at-law, as well as county and district clerks, the collections department, the district attorney, and constables'
offices, among others."

I'm contending that all government courts or offices utilized by the courts are off limits; the premises of a "government court or office utilized by the court" means a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court; that not all facilities or areas within a building deemed a "courthouse" necessarily meet the test of being "a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court"; that, however, there exist some buildings deemed "courthouses" whose preponderance of use do classify them as "a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court" and would validly fall under TPC §46.03(a)(3).

I think we're in agreement on everything except that last clause. I believe those creatures can actually exist.

My fear in recent discussions about courts and carry is that we're seeing it brought up primarily over (new) postings of 30.06/30.07 signage...and that seems to hold true even for complaints filed with the AG. We have tens of thousands of folks who are relatively new to Texas carry laws, and I'm afraid focusing on signage may desensitize them to the fact that there is no signage whatsoever required under TPC §46.03(a)(3) to make carry "on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" a third degree felony.

If the three-room "Friendly City Courthouse" in Friendly City, Texas, has no TPC Chapter 30 signs anywhere to be found, that does not mean an LTC holder may carry away with impunity. This is not a condition like a hospital, amusement park, or church--or even an open meeting of a governmental entity--where it is a defense to prosecution if effective notice under 30.06 or 30.07 is not given. Courts are not "you may unless told otherwise"; they are "you may not unless told otherwise."

[JALLEN]

I'm not sure there is any distinction, except in your imaginary example.

Are there courthouses in Texas that are not controlled entrance facilities?

I've not gone into many courthouses in Texas. The few are controlled, no weapons allowed, or sharp pointed devices in some cases. In California, I can't recall the last time I was in a courthouse which was not single entrance search, empty your pockets and bags, metal detector etc. In downtown San Diego, this was a real pain, as the courthouse was 2 blocks long, and the only entrance was at one end.

The Comal County Courthouse has NO courtrooms! It has no security entrances or signs, either. The courts are in the annexes, along with other county offices.

Why wouldn't it be satisfactory to do like what is done at the Capitol, show your LTC and go about your business?

For licensed carriers, what is the sensitivity? Courtrooms, maybe. Hallways and corridors? Judges chambers, sure. Clerk's office? What's the big deal? Surely the worry is not that the licensee will do something violent. Is the worry that some violent felon to be will overpower a carrier and try to escape or take revenge? Then they ought to worry about tiny petite deputies, too.