UNCLEAR: Public school parking lot

[MeMelYup]

I thought that the sign was created to post private property only.

Problem with the my school are you don't see the sign until after you enter the school. They are not on the entrance doors but on the walls after you walk in. This summer we have re designed all the entrances for every campus to make it where visitors have to enter the office before they can access any other part of the school. Office staff will now buzz people in. Where the signs are now you will either not see them or see them after you have checked in with the office.

Section (e) of 30.06 states

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

That portion allows a governmental entity to post if it meets the already prohibited location in 46.03 or 46.035.
That means there is no carry in the bathroom and you can't hang your gun from that hanger thingy on the door.
As for posting where it is not visible until you have already entered, then that is just poor posting. No different than a 51% sign behind a bar or a 30.06 sign in the bathroom of a restaurant. Until you see it you have not been given effective notice.

[Vol Texan]

Actually, it would not be redundant. Carrying in a school is a violation of 46.03 and a third degree felony. Posting a 30.06 would add Criminal Trespass (Class A Misdemeanor).

Gotcha, got to make sure you add as many charges as possible to CHL holders since they are so ignorant of gun laws.

Actually, I think it is a great idea to post a sign at the door. That acts as a good reminder in case a CHL just has a brain blank and heads into a school building without thinking about the fact they are carrying. If they go past the big sign, then they need to be charged.

Keith,

As much as I enjoy reading your thoughts on this board, on this I have to respectfully disagree. I prefer that as few people and organizations as possible have the knowledge of what a proper 30.06 sign looks like. Let the uneducated continue to feel good as they post their 'no guns' signs on the doors of their businesses, and we'll continue to carry on. But if they start seeing more 'proper' signs (e.g. at the school, post office, DPS office, etc.), there is the chance they can someday learn, and then post the right sign at their businesses. The way I see it, let the school have a sign reminding us that it is illegal to carry there (for any reason), and it will be a good reminder for when we have a momentary lapse of brainpower.

[Keith B]

Keith,

As much as I enjoy reading your thoughts on this board, on this I have to respectfully disagree. I prefer that as few people and organizations as possible have the knowledge of what a proper 30.06 sign looks like. Let the uneducated continue to feel good as they post their 'no guns' signs on the doors of their businesses, and we'll continue to carry on. But if they start seeing more 'proper' signs (e.g. at the school, post office, DPS office, etc.), there is the chance they can someday learn, and then post the right sign at their businesses. The way I see it, let the school have a sign reminding us that it is illegal to carry there (for any reason), and it will be a good reminder for when we have a momentary lapse of brainpower.

I don't disagree with the philosophy of just posting a generic sign warning about carrying in schools or other off-limits places. It would serve the same purpose but be innocuous

[gdanaher]

I haven't had a clear explanation of the following scenario and would appreciate opinions. The local ISD and city government teamed to create a health clinic that could be utilized by employees and dependents of both government agencies. The property is listed by the county appraisal district as being owned by the city. The building was renovated by the ISD, equipment was purchased as far as I know by the ISD, and employees are hired through the ISD. The building is posted with a 30.06 sign. s such signage appropriate? Can it be a school facility if it is owned for tax purposes by the city?

[Keith B]

I haven't had a clear explanation of the following scenario and would appreciate opinions. The local ISD and city government teamed to create a health clinic that could be utilized by employees and dependents of both government agencies. The property is listed by the county appraisal district as being owned by the city. The building was renovated by the ISD, equipment was purchased as far as I know by the ISD, and employees are hired through the ISD. The building is posted with a 30.06 sign. s such signage appropriate? Can it be a school facility if it is owned for tax purposes by the city?

If not listed as ISD property, but city property, then it is not a school.

[n5wd]

I haven't had a clear explanation of the following scenario and would appreciate opinions. The local ISD and city government teamed to create a health clinic that could be utilized by employees and dependents of both government agencies. The property is listed by the county appraisal district as being owned by the city. The building was renovated by the ISD, equipment was purchased as far as I know by the ISD, and employees are hired through the ISD. The building is posted with a 30.06 sign. s such signage appropriate? Can it be a school facility if it is owned for tax purposes by the city?

If not listed as ISD property, but city property, then it is not a school.

BUT! If they are hosting kids, who are in school, on work-based experience training (such as Health Science Technology students who are doing 'rotations' in the clinic), THEN it would be off-limits. The problem is, you're not likely to know that on the first trip in, and since the rotations might not be every day, you might not be able to "guess". As an HST-certified teacher, if I was looking for sites for my students to get 'real-world' experience, that clinic would be a natural! Just sayin'...

[JP171]

ND, that is not correct, the facility would not qualify as a school and it still remains a city facility so cannot be posted and enforced as a school

[n5wd]

ND, that is not correct, the facility would not qualify as a school and it still remains a city facility so cannot be posted and enforced as a school

Here's the law:

PC §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;

A health clinic, co-operated by a city government and a school district (another government entity), that is training school kids in an authorized, established education instruction would be prohibited, according to the above. While your local doc's or vet clinic might also be hosting such students, you probably wouldn't be expected to know that. In a facility, at least partially operated by the school district, that's usually one of the myriad of reasons that school districts justify their investment in such. I'm trying not to parse this out to just take things out of context, but...

[RoyGBiv]

If not listed as ISD property, but city property, then it is not a school.

Hmmmmmmm.......

Here's another example then....

On the outside of this building is signage that reads "Keller ISD Natatorium".
The facility is listed as a campus on the Keller ISD web site: http://campus.kellerisd.net/swim/Pages/default.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The facility is posted 30.06, but the signs are non-compliant (letters too small).

TAD shows that this property is owned by the City of Keller. http://www.tad.org/datasearch/re.cfm?Ac ... 28%3EJ%20D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The swim center is used by a wide variety of people, from toddler swim classes to club teams to elder swim classes and adult lap swim. The facility is also used by Keller HS swim team for practices and meets. I never thought to check the ownership records until just now.

So... When HS practice is ongoing, or a meet run by the ISD, carry is off limits. Otherwise, the facility is not off limits??
Should I be contacting the City Atty about a not-allowed 30.06 posting? (I would never even dream to tell them their sign is non-compliant)

[gdanaher]

BUT! If they are hosting kids, who are in school, on work-based experience training (such as Health Science Technology students who are doing 'rotations' in the clinic), THEN it would be off-limits. The problem is, you're not likely to know that on the first trip in, and since the rotations might not be every day, you might not be able to "guess". As an HST-certified teacher, if I was looking for sites for my students to get 'real-world' experience, that clinic would be a natural! Just sayin'...

The district has no health science program and there is no intent of instruction. Crowded building with exam rooms, pharmacy, storage, and a small office for the professionals.

[JP171]

ND, that is not correct, the facility would not qualify as a school and it still remains a city facility so cannot be posted and enforced as a school

Here's the law:

PC §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;

A health clinic, co-operated by a city government and a school district (another government entity), that is training school kids in an authorized, established education instruction would be prohibited, according to the above. While your local doc's or vet clinic might also be hosting such students, you probably wouldn't be expected to know that. In a facility, at least partially operated by the school district, that's usually one of the myriad of reasons that school districts justify their investment in such. I'm trying not to parse this out to just take things out of context, but...

then by your method of thinking that would make zoological gardens off limits when a school field trip is there, a hotel if the graduation ceremony is there or a prom and even the local Whataburger if a school trip stops there for lunch. None of these is true, if the clinic is open to the public, school or not having students there does NOT make it a school sponsored activity and it is NOT off limits. One of the Mods can correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember this very subject coming up in the past and the Forum Owner weighed in on the subject and said just what I have. Granted I am not a Lawyer but he is very much a lawyer and yep I gotta go with what he said. Also I believe he said that the part you highlighted means school property, stadiums, fields and specifically rented portions of a building for class or competition

[n5wd]

You may well be right. I'll let Charles tell me if I'm reading that incorrectly.

In any event, back to the OP, it's moot, now, since there are no kids that'd be using the facilities as a work-study location.

[MeMelYup]

School sponsored activity. School class field trip to the local zoo. Your children are going and you agree to go as a chaperone and have a CHL. You as a chaperone or any participation in the field trip cannot carry. Any other people at the zoo are not effected by the field trip as they are not directly participating in the school event.

[jmra]

I have tried to find a clear answer as new CHL holder, but to no avail. I keep reading contradicting statements and opinions; and the law itself is not fully clear to me. I would really appreciate your help in this SPECIFIC SCENARIO:

I go about my business during the day with my concealed weapon, and then I go pick up my oldest son from the public school:

Am I permitted to disarm discretely in my car and lock the gun in it (in the SCHOOL'S PARKING LOT)? Or, do I need to go home first to drop it off?

Thank you in advance...

Just to make sure the correct answer to your question didn't get lost during all the beatings of dead horses, Nightmare69 came up with a link from the Texas Association of School Boards that puts this issue to rest once and for all.
http://www.tasb.org/services/legal/esou ... s_2009.pdf
I guess you could say it comes straight from the horses mouth.
"Parking lots and sidewalks
Premises do not include public or private driveways, streets, sidewalks, walkways, parking lots, parking garages, or other parking areas. Tex. Penal Code § 46.035(f)(3). Consequently, it is not a criminal offense to possess a firearm in a school parking lot, for example.
In years past, many school districts posted written notice at the edge of school property stating that concealed handguns were forbidden on campus and failure to comply could result in a charge of criminal trespass (Class A misdemeanor). See Tex. Penal Code § 30.06 (permitting private property owners to prohibit concealed handgun license holders from bringing guns on their property). However, in 2003, state law was amended to clarify that public property owners, like school districts, cannot use this provision to restrict concealed handgun license holders from bringing guns on campus, except to the extent the guns are already prohibited by other law – specifically, Texas Penal Code sections 46.03 and 46.035.
What does this mean for Texas school districts? It means that school districts lack the legal authority to criminalize (either as a felony under Section 46.03 or as a criminal trespass under Section 30.06) the possession of firearms on school property other than in school buildings."

[ATDM]

I have tried to find a clear answer as new CHL holder, but to no avail. I keep reading contradicting statements and opinions; and the law itself is not fully clear to me. I would really appreciate your help in this SPECIFIC SCENARIO:

I go about my business during the day with my concealed weapon, and then I go pick up my oldest son from the public school:

Am I permitted to disarm discretely in my car and lock the gun in it (in the SCHOOL'S PARKING LOT)? Or, do I need to go home first to drop it off?

Thank you in advance...

Just to make sure the correct answer to your question didn't get lost during all the beatings of dead horses, Nightmare69 came up with a link from the Texas Association of School Boards that puts this issue to rest once and for all.
http://www.tasb.org/services/legal/esou ... s_2009.pdf
I guess you could say it comes straight from the horses mouth.
"Parking lots and sidewalks
Premises do not include public or private driveways, streets, sidewalks, walkways, parking lots, parking garages, or other parking areas. Tex. Penal Code § 46.035(f)(3). Consequently, it is not a criminal offense to possess a firearm in a school parking lot, for example.
In years past, many school districts posted written notice at the edge of school property stating that concealed handguns were forbidden on campus and failure to comply could result in a charge of criminal trespass (Class A misdemeanor). See Tex. Penal Code § 30.06 (permitting private property owners to prohibit concealed handgun license holders from bringing guns on their property). However, in 2003, state law was amended to clarify that public property owners, like school districts, cannot use this provision to restrict concealed handgun license holders from bringing guns on campus, except to the extent the guns are already prohibited by other law – specifically, Texas Penal Code sections 46.03 and 46.035.
What does this mean for Texas school districts? It means that school districts lack the legal authority to criminalize (either as a felony under Section 46.03 or as a criminal trespass under Section 30.06) the possession of firearms on school property other than in school buildings."

Thanks for making it crystal clear. That was exactly my understanding of the law to begin with, but many of my friends muddied it up by arguing with each other about it incessantly, which made me want to err on the side of caution. And that would mean many extra trips home for me to drop off the gun before picking up the kids...

I really appreciate this.