TexasCHLforum.com

So, I guess its pretty clear that, even though it is occurring on the city streets, it would be a no-no to carry while watching the High School Homecoming Parade.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's not school property, it's a public thoroughfare, and a significant number of people would not be there for reasons of the parade - like local business owners and their customers.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I wouldn't worry about it. It's not school property, it's a public thoroughfare, and a significant number of people would not be there for reasons of the parade - like local business owners and their customers.

Even thought the parade is organized by the High School? Also, does it change the equation for you knowing that my daughter is in the parade? I remember some discussions a while back about accidentally (or on purpose) running into your child's field trip while at a museum or such ...

terryg wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I wouldn't worry about it. It's not school property, it's a public thoroughfare, and a significant number of people would not be there for reasons of the parade - like local business owners and their customers.

Even thought the parade is organized by the High School? Also, does it change the equation for you knowing that my daughter is in the parade? I remember some discussions a while back about accidentally (or on purpose) running into your child's field trip while at a museum or such ...

That might change it for you... I don't know. But it would not change it for me, as my child is not in the parade, and if I were there, it would be for business reasons.

Even so, here's what I suspect: If you simply stood on the sidewalk and watched, and you did not interact with your daughter other than to wave nor did you interact with school and/or parade officials, then I don't see how you could be prosecutable.

Picture this - you go downtown to visit your bank on a financial matter. While you are there, on business, the homecoming parade goes by. You, and everybody else inside the bank, step outside and as your daughter goes by, you and your banker both wave at her. You're not there for the parade; you're there for business. But, that is your daughter in the parade, and you did wave at her. Is any cop in his right mind going to arrest you? How would he know you were armed? Etc., etc. I'm not suggesting that you "got away with breaking the law." I'm suggesting that you didn't break the law in the first place.

That said, I am not a lawyer, etc., etc. etc.

Thanks TAM!

The Annoyed Man wrote:That might change it for you... I don't know. But it would not change it for me, as my child is not in the parade, and if I were there, it would be for business reasons.

Sure - what I meant was 'In your way of thinking' i.e. how you think the laws would apply; but still as if you were 'In my shoes'. Which you answered. Thanks again!

terryg wrote:Thanks TAM!

The Annoyed Man wrote:That might change it for you... I don't know. But it would not change it for me, as my child is not in the parade, and if I were there, it would be for business reasons.

Sure - what I meant was 'In your way of thinking' i.e. how you think the laws would apply; but still as if you were 'In my shoes'. Which you answered. Thanks again!

If I were in your shoes, I would not worry about it, and I would carry. I don't believe that the city streets suddenly become off-limits to CHL just because a temporary event, lasting an hour or less, takes place along a public thoroughfare - parent or not. It would not be the same as carrying during a field trip, or at a football game, or on campus. That said, I do think it would be different if you were participating in the event in any other capacity than as a curbside observer - parent or not.

That would be my attitude and understanding of the law. But I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps someone else better informed than I am could chime in?

I agree that is not a problem. IANAL

The only way I can see that this would be a problem is if one were to be a part of the parade.

The homecoming parade would not seem to fit the definition under PC 46.035:

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of
whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's
person:
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional
sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless
the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used
in the event;


But its harder to argue under PC 46.03. I think this language is a bit broad. I've seen the highschool cross-country team running in a long line down the streets and sidewalks around our neighborhood. Is it really the intent of the legislature to say weapons are now not allowed in my neighborhood because of a definition that includes any activity sponsored by a school?

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits
an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly posTEXAS
CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §46.03. 39
sesses 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;

SlickTX wrote:But its harder to argue under PC 46.03. I think this language is a bit broad. I've seen the highschool cross-country team running in a long line down the streets and sidewalks around our neighborhood. Is it really the intent of the legislature to say weapons are now not allowed in my neighborhood because of a definition that includes any activity sponsored by a school?

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;

There is no case law on point.

That said, I believe it is clear that the activity grounds must be school property. You cannot read any part of a statute out of context and the phrase "any grounds or building on which . . ." appears in a sentence that clearly refers to school property. Further evidence is the provision that allows a school to authorize the carrying of firearms in such places and schools would have such authority only on property it owns.

Chas.

SlickTX wrote: But its harder to argue under PC 46.03. I think this language is a bit broad. I've seen the highschool cross-country team running in a long line down the streets and sidewalks around our neighborhood. Is it really the intent of the legislature to say weapons are now not allowed in my neighborhood because of a definition that includes any activity sponsored by a school?

No, surely not. But the potential difference here is whether or not you just coincidentally on the same street or whether you are attending the event - which is occurring in the street). I am not saying the conclusion that it is not a problem for me to attend the parade armed is wrong. But there is a non-trivial difference between the two scenarios.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That said, I believe it is clear that the activity grounds must be school property. You cannot read any part of a statute out of context and the phrase "any grounds or building on which . . ." appears in a sentence that clearly refers to school property. Further evidence is the provision that allows a school to authorize the carrying of firearms in such places and schools would have such authority only on property it owns.
Chas.

Wow, I'm sorta-of surprised by that Mr. Cotton. That is not how I read that at all. I am not a lawyer and a lot of the PC text is confusing to me - so I will defer to your wisdom in the end.

But I wonder about something like this:

You are a chaperone at a HS prom that is occurring in a rented, non-posted hotel convention space. By your interpretation, you could be armed at that prom. Correct? Or am I missing something?

terryg wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:That said, I believe it is clear that the activity grounds must be school property. You cannot read any part of a statute out of context and the phrase "any grounds or building on which . . ." appears in a sentence that clearly refers to school property. Further evidence is the provision that allows a school to authorize the carrying of firearms in such places and schools would have such authority only on property it owns.
Chas.

Wow, I'm sorta-of surprised by that Mr. Cotton. That is not how I read that at all. I am not a lawyer and a lot of the PC text is confusing to me - so I will defer to your wisdom in the end.

But I wonder about something like this:

You are a chaperone at a HS prom that is occurring in a rented, non-posted hotel convention space. By your interpretation, you could be armed at that prom. Correct? Or am I missing something?

As I said, there is no case law on point, all you have here is "Cotton on the law" and that's not going to carry any weight in court.

In your prom example held off-campus it is less clear because the school would have a contract with the property owner for this event. This gives some level of control to the school and this could well be enough to extend TPC §46.03 to the prom. I believe it does.

This analysis would also apply to temporary buildings rented by a school or school district to use for classes. (The so-called "temporary buildings" there were plentiful when I was in school 100 years ago.) TPC §46.03 renders off-limits only a "building or a portion of building" not the real estate. If rented temporary classrooms under the control of the school were not covered by TPC §46.03 simply because they were not owned by the school, then CHL's could carry in those buildings, but not the brick buildings. This clearly was not the intent of the legislature and I believe the rental/lease contract giving the school control over those building will trigger the provisions of TPC §46.03. For the same reason, I believe the H.S. prom will also be off-limits.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SlickTX wrote:But its harder to argue under PC 46.03. I think this language is a bit broad. I've seen the highschool cross-country team running in a long line down the streets and sidewalks around our neighborhood. Is it really the intent of the legislature to say weapons are now not allowed in my neighborhood because of a definition that includes any activity sponsored by a school?

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;

There is no case law on point.

That said, I believe it is clear that the activity grounds must be school property. You cannot read any part of a statute out of context and the phrase "any grounds or building on which . . ." appears in a sentence that clearly refers to school property. Further evidence is the provision that allows a school to authorize the carrying of firearms in such places and schools would have such authority only on property it owns.

Chas.

I don't mean to quibble, but by that logic you would not be able to carry in the school bus or school owned car only while it was parked on the school property. Correct? If the first phrase colors the reading of the second phrase, should it not also color the third phrase?

Again, I don't mean to quibble with you. I really feel that this particular section of the code could have been written better.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As I said, there is no case law on point, you all you have here is "Cotton on the law" and that's not going to carry any weight in court.

Well, "Cotton on the law" may not carry any weight in court, but its a darn sight better at keeping me out of court in the first place than "terryg on the law". But disclaimer is noted.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In your prom example held off-campus it is less clear because the school would have a contract with the property owner for this event. This gives some level of control to the school and this could well be enough to extend TPC §46.03 to the prom. I believe it does.

This analysis would also apply to temporary buildings rented by a school or school district to use for classes. (The so-called "temporary buildings" there were plentiful when I was in school 100 years ago.) TPC §46.03 renders off-limits only a "building or a portion of building" not the real estate. If rented temporary classrooms under the control of the school were not covered by TPC §46.03 simply because they were not owned by the school, then CHL's could carry in those buildings, but not the brick buildings. This clearly was not the intent of the legislature and I believe the rental/lease contract giving the school control over those building will trigger the provisions of TPC §46.03. For the same reason, I believe the H.S. prom will also be off-limits.

Chas.

Ok, that makes more sense to me. Thank you for your input!!

Thanks to all for their replies!! Before I posted, I was planning on leaving it in the car. But with the unanimous opinions here, I will carry to the parade. Here's to not being on the news tonight.