Splitting Hairs?

[thatguyoverthere]

So, a discussion in another thread got me to thinking of a couple of situations I encounter frequently...

At my workplace, the building is posted with valid 30.06 signs. So I secure my handgun in my vehicle in the parking lot while I'm in the building.

In the second situation, I find myself going to visit people in hospitals a lot (because I'm old, and so most of my friends are old!). And the hospitals I visit typically do also have valid 30.06 signs posted at the building entrances. So again, I secure my handgun in my vehicle during my visits there.

However, since the 30.06 verbiage specifically says "property" and not "premises," am I technically breaking the law by having my handgun with me in my vehicle while I'm on the parking lot (the "property") of those places? I'm not too worried about getting busted for it, just wondering if it is technically illegal?

[thetexan]

I don't believe so and here's why.

30.06 only has force against those who carry a gun under the authority of a their license issued under 411 subchapter H. You may carry your gun under the auspices of 46.02 (MPA) in your vehicle, concealed and without a permit. A hospital is not listed as prohibited under 46.03.

Therefore you can carry a concealed gun in your vehicle at any location you can drive your car that isn't on a firearm prohibited list. I believe that if you could drive your vehicle into the hospital building itself, as long as the gun was concealed within the vehicle, you would have a hard time finding a gun law that you had violated. Even if they had a posted 30.06.

The minute you try to remove that gun from the vehicle and carry it concealed in a non-46.02 environment you play by the 30.06 rules.

tex

[Pawpaw]

No, it is not illegal.

You can keep a handgun in your vehicle - no CHL required so 30.06 would not apply.

Having a CHL does not give you less rights than a citizen without a CHL.

Basically, inside your vehicle, you are carrying under the MPA (Motorist Protection Act - PC §46.02 (a-1)) and not your CHL.

I'm not a lawyer, but that's the way Charles, who is, has explained it.

Note: If the parking lot is posted, don't step out of your vehicle with the handgun.

[The Annoyed Man]

Another thing..... Generally speaking, the sign has to be prominently displayed or you haven't received proper notice. It doesn't matter HOW prominently it might be displayed at the building entrances, from inside a car 150 yards away, you have not received notice.

[thetexan]

Another thing..... Generally speaking, the sign has to be prominently displayed or you haven't received proper notice. It doesn't matter HOW prominently it might be displayed at the building entrances, from inside a car 150 yards away, you have not received notice.

good point

[thatguyoverthere]

Thanks for the replies folks. Makes sense what you're saying about being covered by the MPA.

And, sorry. I'm sure the subject has been discussed on here before. When I search for info on the forums, depending on the words I use to search, I might get zero hits, or I might get 500 hits. So I may or may not find what I'm looking for. And to be perfectly honest, sometimes I just plain forget to search!

But thanks again. That does answer my question.

[thetexan]

Here is another point about the word property vs the word premises.

In some sections where the word premises is used it is defined for its usage in that particular section. In others it is not. For example, 46.02 has one meaning and 46.03 and 46..035 have another. In each case the definition of premises is used within its respective section according to that section's definition. The sections where the word premises is used and defined are...

411.203 defined for that section
411.204 no definition
30.06 no definition but refers to 40.03 and 46.035 only in an indirect reference pertaining to government entities
42.01 no definition, but is not pertinent to establishing locations where carry concealed is allowed or not allowed
46.02 defined for that section
46.03 defined for that section
46.035 defined for that section
46.04 no definition
46.13 no definition
46.15 no definition but directly refers to and is an exception to 46.02 and 46.03 in which there is a definition
11.041 no definition
11.61 no definition
61.11 no definition
61.71 no definition
CCP Art. 2.127 no definition
52.062 defined for that section
37.0811 defined for that section

the term physical premises is used in these sections

46.03 premises defined for that section and also used in the phrase physical premises
37.0811 premises defined for that section and also used in the phrase physical premises

Texas is divided into two areas...that area where the carriage of a concealed weapon is prohibited by enumeration (46.02, .03, and .035)...and the remaining area where prohibited locations are marked by 30.06 notifications.

Since the definitions for premises are contained within and apply to sections 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035 (which deal with prohibited locations) those definitions do not extend outside of those sections into the realm covered by 30.06. We must then look within 30.06 to find its meaning. And except for 30.06(e) which is an indirect reference to rules of carrying on the premises of governmental entities in 46.03 and 46.035, the word premises is not used. In fact the word property IS used.

So I don't believe that there should be any confusion with property vs. premises in conjunction with 30.06. When a legitimate 30.06 sign is appropriately placed at a location the term property is what is specified and meant. And there are many legal definitions of property in Texas depending on it's use in the statutes.

Absent any controlling sectional or global definition I would take it to mean its common definition and usage. Merriam-Webster defines property as something that is owned by a person or a business, etc. Under Texas Code Annotated 1.04 Definitions it states (1) "Property" means any matter or thing capable of private ownership"

tex

[jerry_r60]

For the parking lot at work, I recall we had the "parking lot" bill, SB321 last session that explicitly made it legal to keep a firearm and ammo in your vehicle. There were a few exceptions as I recall.

As for carrying under MPA in our vehicles, there is a bit more to it isn't there. For example, we still must give our CHL if we are stopped and asked for our driver's license. Someone carrying solely under MPA of course would not have that burden.

[Pawpaw]

For the parking lot at work, I recall we had the "parking lot" bill, SB321 last session that explicitly made it legal to keep a firearm and ammo in your vehicle. There were a few exceptions as I recall.

That only applies to employees of the facility. It was not the "Parking Lot Bill", it was the "Employee Parking Lot Bill".

As for carrying under MPA in our vehicles, there is a bit more to it isn't there. For example, we still must give our CHL if we are stopped and asked for our driver's license. Someone carrying solely under MPA of course would not have that burden.

Of course there's more to it. I was answering the question that was asked and none that weren't. Specifically, my answer would only apply if the parking lot itself was posted.

[thetexan]

That's right.

As I stated earlier 46.02, what we call the Motorist Protection Act essentially provides the citizens of Texas a method of carrying a concealed gun inside their vehicle without requiring a CHL. This authority does not rely on your CHL and doesn't require a CHL to implement. There is no requirement for me carrying my CHL to avail myself of the 46.02 privilege as long as I do not stray out of the 46.02 realm into the non 46.02 realm.

Then there is the question of displaying your CHL on demand of an ID. My interpretation of 411.205 Requirement to display license is that it is a global rule that covers any situation where you are asked to provide ID. This includes if you are on foot or in a vehicle. EXCEPT, that you don't need the CHL in the vehicle (as long as you are not violating any prohibited location that would otherwise require the CHL). An example of this might be the application of LC 52.061 where the rule specifically prevents an employer from prohibiting you from parking your vehicle in his parking lot if you have a CHL but the prohibition does not mention employees carrying under the authority of the non-CHL 46.02. In this case it seems the CHL provides the employee protection against employer restrictions that are not enjoyed by non-permit holders carrying under the authority of 46.02.

So my feeling is that while in the vehicle, in a non-prohibited location (which otherwise would require a CHL) you may carry under the auspices of 46.02 and have no requirement to show your permit because you do not even need to carry your permit. If you carry outside your vehicle you leave the authority of 46.02 and are subject to 411.205 because by definition you are carrying under the authority of your CHL.

Yes there are several "parking lot" rules, employer businesses, campuses of higher learning institutions, 46.035 premises, etc.

So, in locations not prohibited by 46.02 or 46.03 you may carry under the authority of and in compliance with 46.02, and with a CHL you may carry beyond 46.02 at additional locations not prohibited by 46.03, 46.035, 30.06 and 411.2032.

tex