TexasCHLforum.com

A couple of additional points:

1. IIRC, PC 46.035 was explicitly amended to allow parents to carry while picking up their children at school. It would be unprofessional for a DA attempt to prosecute a law-abiding CHL holder in that case (though Mr. Rosenthal did the same thing with the traveling presumption). Any conviction would probably be overturned on appeal, and DAs do not like to have that happen.

2. There is no reason for a LEO to search a person or vehicle who is picking up a child at school. Probable cause is necessary for evidence of a search to be used for prosecution.

- Jim

familyman wrote:I had a conversation with a friend of mine last night. He is LEO. He advised me that CCL or not, school in session or not. School function happening or not that having a firearm on the propety of the school was against the law. I told him that I was taught that on the property was not against the law. That a CHL holder could disarm in the car, secure the weapon, do his buisness in the school and return to his car without being in violation of the law. He told me that I was wrong and that his DA had accepted charges against someone for doing exactly that.

Cops are the last to trust about knowing the laws they are supposed to enforce. Especially arcane things like firearms laws.

The large-city cop that lives behind me doesn't even know red-light law and he's a seventeen year veteran. Had to show him a quote from the official City of Dallas website to get him to believe me. Dallas started citing cops for illegally running redlights and he was upset. I had to educate him about redlight law. Turns out for the past seventeen years he's been handing out tickets to people who weren't breaking the law.

As a CHL holder and I am armed. I get pulled over for 5 MPH over the speed limit in a school zone. Officer asks for my ID and I present as required my TDL as well as my CHL. He asks me if I am rmed and I answer with yes sir. He asks me where I am coming from and I respond that I just dropped my child off at school. At this point I have admitted to having a gun and that I was on school property. No need to conscent to search at this point.

I believe that in the world we live in today, anything is possible.

familyman wrote:As a CHL holder and I am armed. I get pulled over for 5 MPH over the speed limit in a school zone. Officer asks for my ID and I present as required my TDL as well as my CHL. He asks me if I am rmed and I answer with yes sir. He asks me where I am coming from and I respond that I just dropped my child off at school. At this point I have admitted to having a gun and that I was on school property.

To begin with, that's why some people refuse to answer such questions.

Being in your car on school property is not illegal, so the cop has no valid basis for an arrest. He might arrest you, but it the charge isn't going to stick.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

familyman wrote:As a CHL holder and I am armed. I get pulled over for 5 MPH over the speed limit in a school zone. Officer asks for my ID and I present as required my TDL as well as my CHL. He asks me if I am rmed and I answer with yes sir. He asks me where I am coming from and I respond that I just dropped my child off at school. At this point I have admitted to having a gun and that I was on school property.

To begin with, that's why some people refuse to answer such questions.

Being in your car on school property is not illegal, so the cop has no valid basis for an arrest. He might arrest you, but it the charge isn't going to stick.

- Jim

This has been hashed over in numerous threads. If you have a valid CHL, then you are legal. The only caveat would be if you had a non-resident CHL (CWP, CHP, CCW, etc.) issued by another state and were in a 'Gun Free School Zone. Then, they might have a leg to stand on as the non-resident permits do not get you the exemption.

Learn the difference between school property and school premises.

Then when asked to answer questions other than to identify yourself by name, address and date of birth, say you respectfully decline to engage in consensual conversation and are you free to go.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But do you (Chas) think there is any way a DA could read the law such that children entering or leaving the school could be classified as "an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution"?

No, entering and leaving a building is not a "sponsored" activity. I have been critical of Rosenthal's interpretation of the now-repealed presumption of traveling, but I have no reason to believe he would try to prosecute anyone under these conditions. To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone in the Harris County DA's office actually said they would accept charges under these circumstances. I suspect that was just inaccurate locker-room banter. I'm not saying the Deputy is lying and that he never heard that statement made; I just think he heard inaccurate information, or information based upon a different fact pattern.

Chas.

I respect you opinion.

This LEO was very clear in what he thought was the law and also what he thought about this topic.

After this conversation and others that we had. I did not feel as though the CHL holder is looked upon in a positive light by the HCSD.

seamusTX wrote: Being in your car on school property is not illegal, so the cop has no valid basis for an arrest. He might arrest you, but it the charge isn't going to stick.

- Jim

Not according to the misinformed instructor that I had for my renewal class. He started arguing with me that even though a 30.06 sign posted at the entrance to a public school parking lot MIGHT not be enforceable, that I shouldn't do it, "...unless I was sure that I could count on my wife to bail me out of jail and agree to pay the legal fees that I will need to fight the charge.", (because any money I had was also "hers" and if she didn't agree to spend it that way then I couldn't either).

How's that for a low class move by an instructor? To be honest, I have no idea if it is even true under TX law, but I think it was highly inappropriate for him to even go there.

I told him that not only did I have that angle fully covered, but that it was none of his business how.

Not meaning to hijack this thread. Just could not help venting on this one. It still sticks in my craw even though months have passed since then.

familyman wrote:This LEO was very clear in what he thought was the law and also what he thought about this topic.

After this conversation and others that we had. I did not feel as though the CHL holder is looked upon in a positive light by the HCSD.

Thankfully most rank & file LEOs support CHLs. And I hope this officer can be corrected about his beliefs without having to go to court to defend himself against arresting someone illegally.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:"...unless I was sure that I could count on my wife to bail me out of jail and agree to pay the legal fees that I will need to fight the charge.", (because any money I had was also "hers" and if she didn't agree to spend it that way then I couldn't either).

Nonsense. A spouse cannot prevent the other spouse from spending money that the spouse has access to. Not in this century, anyway.

This kind of issue comes up in divorces, but not an ongoing marriage.

- Jim

The instructor could have badly explained the concept that just because you know you are not breaking the law, doesn't mean you will not have to spend a night in jail and hire an attorney to explain to a judge you where not breaking the law.