New Opinion of DPS Attorney on CHL under 46.035

[rtschl]

Today, a CHL instructor told a group of us the following: In training last month with DPS, that the DPS attorney specifically stated that CHL holders may NOT carry In a hospital or nursing home, amusement park, established place of religious worship, or meeting of a governmental entity and CHL instructors were to teach the class as such. The CHL instructor said she and several other instructors all cited 46.035 (i) 'Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.' The DPS attorney was adamant that CHL instructors must teach that you CAN NOT carry in those establishments whether or not 30.06 is posted. This is the "official" position of DPS and the course instruction for CHL.

Has anyone else heard that DPS is giving a legal opinion that CHL holders still can not carry in the referenced establishments in 46.035 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) even with the addition of 46.035 subsection i? If so, has the AG published a legal opinion on this? Is this being challenged administratively or legally by anyone?

Thanks,

Ron

[surprise_i'm_armed]

This seems to defy all logic.

The additions to the law which allow CHL carry within those
entities that are not posted 30.06, is very clear to me, and
I believe to all who read it.

Someone at DPS needs some new reading glasses.

SIA

[AEA]

Sounds like another job for the TSRA to step into (since they missed their chance on the State Fair fiasco) hopefully they will take action here.

[chabouk]

I recall reading about a previous DPS lawyer giving bogus information in instructor school, and how relieved the instructors were when they learned she wouldn't be back.

It sounds like not much has changed.

[Purplehood]

Sounds like someone has an agenda.

[Greybeard]

It could not have been the same one who refused to discuss Senate Bill 378 (changes to 9.31, 9.32 and 83.001) in August of 2007?

Nahhhhh, it could not have been that one.

[lrb111]

We were there last week. It was not told to us.
Although, she did day the very old signage on hospitals was still valid. I cannot recall the exact numbers for the rule, this a.m. It's the weird one [example 42111(a),(b)].
I'm pretty sure her years as a California atty. infected her, somehow.

edit: the old sign on hospitals was for those issued a concealed carry license under Article 4413(29ee) it was illegal carry under 46.035, for Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code [Hospital].
Pulled info from here. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... hl/AGO.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

My chl Instructor, a seasoned police officer, asked us to strike out the last 3 in Hosp, Am, park, religious park fro the chl book.

I see now valid 30-06 on some hospital door, what are those for?

[Purplehood]

My chl Instructor, a seasoned police officer, asked us to strike out the last 3 in Hosp, Am, park, religious park fro the chl book.

I see now valid 30-06 on some hospital door, what are those for?

They can post a 30.06 sign. They have to if they don't want to save our lives.

[WildBill]

I do not see anything on the AG website. The website states that all new opinions are usually published in 24 hours. It may be an old opinion that was revoked, modified or withdrawn after the law was changed.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opin/opinion ... adingID=49" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Greybeard]

"(i) 'Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06." was a 1997 amendement to 1995 addition of 46.035.

There was an article about this very subject in the November issue of the TCHA newsletter last year. Obviously there have been untold numbers of CHL instuctors getting away from some DPS schools without being made aware of this.

[rtschl]

"(i) 'Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06." was a 1997 amendement to 1995 addition of 46.035.

There was an article about this very subject in the November issue of the TCHA newsletter last year. Obviously there have been untold numbers of CHL instuctors getting away from some DPS schools without being made aware of this.

Greybeard,

Did the article state that the DPS attorney is correct?

Thanks,

Ron

[Greybeard]

No. The article did not even mention the DPs attorney. It was written in followup to a prior article about carrying in church. It seems a lot of instructors had written the author, stating that carrying in church was a good way to get thrown in jail. The gist of the article was that, sadly, many instructors had been not been following changes in the law - or, in my not-so-humble opinion, were not even informed to begin with!

[bdickens]

Sounds like someone there at DPS doesn't know how to read.

[RPB]

Sounds like someone there at DPS doesn't know how to read.

Sounds like someone confused :

46.035 (i) 'Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.'

but thought they read "it is a defense" or "it is an affirmative defense"

They are different words for a reason.


That's a DPS attorney, not the OAG.

Or, sounds like a multi-faceted unconstitutional hidden agenda of impeding our freedom of religion, in addition to Second Amendment.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

If my church were forced to put up 30.06 signs by a governmental entity, we'd probably "rent-a-tent" and hold services outside. Would be easier than disarming the Pastor, the other Preachers, all the Deacons and most of the congregation.