TexasCHLforum.com

Yesterday, I attended a city council meeting in small town that I live adjacent to. Due to the main subject of this meeting, I figured there would be a lot of people in attendance (actually I estimate there were about 150 people there). I also thought there might be a LEO or two in a official capacity in attendance (there were). I was going to carry and if the meeting was posted 30.06 (it was not) I was just going to take the gun back to the car. But I got to thinking the possibility of an LEO or other person in an official capacity giving the audience a verbal warning about carrying (did not happen) before the meeting started.

Was I over thinking this or should I just have carried? I sure did not want to get a verbal warning and have to get up in front of a bunch of people (some I know, but don't know I carry) and take my gun outside.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

stash wrote:Yesterday, I attended a city council meeting in small town that I live adjacent to. Due to the main subject of this meeting, I figured there would be a lot of people in attendance (actually I estimate there were about 150 people there). I also thought there might be a LEO or two in a official capacity in attendance (there were). I was going to carry and if the meeting was posted 30.06 (it was not) I was just going to take the gun back to the car. But I got to thinking the possibility of an LEO or other person in an official capacity giving the audience a verbal warning about carrying (did not happen) before the meeting started.

Was I over thinking this or should I just have carried? I sure did not want to get a verbal warning and have to get up in front of a bunch of people (some I know, but don't know I carry) and take my gun outside.

That could have happened, but I have never seen it. in your situation I would have just carried.

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

MeMelYup wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

The OPs question was what if verbal notice was given after everyone was seated.

In that scenario, he would have had to leave with his handgun.

jbarn wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

The OPs question was what if verbal notice was given after everyone was seated.

In that scenario, he would have had to leave with his handgun.

Not to argue, but the only question I saw in the OP was, "am I over thinking this and should have just carried". I'm not going to tell anyone when to carry or not. My stance is, if in doubt don't carry or don't go in. YMMV

Would a Commissioners court meeting be considered a vehement meeting or a court?

txglock21 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

The OPs question was what if verbal notice was given after everyone was seated.

In that scenario, he would have had to leave with his handgun.

Not to argue, but the only question I saw in the OP was, "am I over thinking this and should have just carried". I'm not going to tell anyone when to carry or not. My stance is, if in doubt don't carry or don't go in. YMMV

No, you are right. He was concerned that if he carried inside and then an announcement was made prohibiting carry he would have had to get up and leave, effectively announcing he was carrying.

mojo84 wrote:Would a Commissioners court meeting be considered a vehement meeting or a court?

Vehement?

Commissioners court is meeting of a government entity.

txglock21 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

The OPs question was what if verbal notice was given after everyone was seated.

In that scenario, he would have had to leave with his handgun.

Not to argue, but the only question I saw in the OP was, "am I over thinking this and should have just carried". I'm not going to tell anyone when to carry or not. My stance is, if in doubt don't carry or don't go in. YMMV

I didn't take his question to be whether or not he could or should carry, but whether or not it was likely for them to orally notify after he got into the meeting.

3dfxMM wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

3dfxMM wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(c) 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, at any meeting of a govern- mental entity.
(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.

He clearly already understands the law as it pertains to his situation. Was there something in particular you were trying to say?

Yes, the offense never happened if he was not given effective notice by 30.06 being posted.

The OPs question was what if verbal notice was given after everyone was seated.

In that scenario, he would have had to leave with his handgun.

Not to argue, but the only question I saw in the OP was, "am I over thinking this and should have just carried". I'm not going to tell anyone when to carry or not. My stance is, if in doubt don't carry or don't go in. YMMV

I didn't take his question to be whether or not he could or should carry, but whether or not it was likely for them to orally notify after he got into the meeting.

Maybe I'm missing something, but where I come from a question ends in a question mark.

stash wrote:Yesterday, I attended a city council meeting in small town that I live adjacent to. Due to the main subject of this meeting, I figured there would be a lot of people in attendance (actually I estimate there were about 150 people there). I also thought there might be a LEO or two in a official capacity in attendance (there were). I was going to carry and if the meeting was posted 30.06 (it was not) I was just going to take the gun back to the car. But I got to thinking the possibility of an LEO or other person in an official capacity giving the audience a verbal warning about carrying (did not happen) before the meeting started.

Was I over thinking this or should I just have carried? I sure did not want to get a verbal warning and have to get up in front of a bunch of people (some I know, but don't know I carry) and take my gun outside.

To get to the point - yes, you were over thinking it.
IANAL, but I recommend carrying everywhere you are legally able to do so.

jbarn wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would a Commissioners court meeting be considered a vehement meeting or a court?

Vehement?

Commissioners court is meeting of a government entity.

Dang auto correct. Sorry.

Is a county commissioners court meeting considered a court or government meeting?

mojo84 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Would a Commissioners court meeting be considered a vehement meeting or a court?

Vehement?

Commissioners court is meeting of a government entity.

Dang auto correct. Sorry.

Is a county commissioners court meeting considered a court or government meeting?

I dunno...I've been to some commissioners court meetings where vehement would be the correct word.