TexasCHLforum.com

Do you need some word smithing help there, Charles? Happy to help out for the priviledge of this forum.

txinvestigator wrote:That seems to clear it up. It seems my interpretation was off.

TXI - I think that clears up the INTENT. Glad I was right on that one... I didn't want to get caught and have to face all of those potential problems if I was wrong on this one.

But it doesn't sound like it clears up how it is actually being used in the field. I sure hope this does get addressed in 2007 as I trust your reading of the TPC as much as I do just about anyone's and if you had an honest misunderstanding about what it meant, then I would hate to see how some DA who wants it to keep additional stuff off limits would interpret it.

*bump*

Sorry, I didn't see any further comment on this and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't reading the law the way I wanted to see it as opposed to the way it was actually written. Ignorance is NOT bliss in this case.

Sorry for cutting my previous post short - I had a kid waking up that I had to go get.

Kalrog wrote:46.035 (f) (3) ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

So let's take this as an English question instead of a CHL question. What does this paragraph mean in English? I don't mean to be condescending here - sometimes walking through this logically helps me out and I think it will show where my reasoning is coming from. I still hope that Charles will chime in on this thread.

Let's agree that a portion of a building means a subset of the whole building - something smaller than the whole building. Let's also agree that the second sentence is pretty self explanatory. and ignore that. Yes?

Hypothetical #1:
Situation:

• Premises are defined as a building.
  A school takes up the whole building.

Result:
The entire building is off limits. No disagreements, right?

Hypothetical #2:
Situation:

• Premises are defined as a building.
  A school takes only a portion of the building

Result:
The whole building is off limits. Because (as you quoted above from 46.03) the premises of a school are off limits. So if a school is in the building and the whole building is a the premises, then the whole building is off limits.


Hypothetical #3:
Situation:

• Premises are defined as a building or portion of a building.
  A school takes up the whole building.

Result:
The whole building is off limits. No argument, correct?


Hypothetical #4:
Situation:

• Premises are defined as a building or portion of a building.
  A school takes up only a portion of the building.

Result:
Only that portion ocupied by the school is off limits. Because the law now allows for finer granularity than just the building level, you can make just the portion used for school off limits.

Conclusion:
I think TXI is applying the "portion of a building" to the wrong area of the code. Replacing premises with building or portion of a building in 46.03 (1) - which is exactly what you can do with this definition - returns this:
in the building or portion of a building where a school...
In order for TXI's interpretation to be correct, it would need to read in the building where a school occupies any portion of the building - and it clearly does NOT state that. My interpretation seems to be closer from an English standpoint.

With that said, case law and legislative intent might be the better way to answer this question and I don't have any of that handy...

*edit*
Sorry, this forum doesn't like the HTML list tags...

txinvestigator wrote:For example, at my daughters school, the business office is seperate from the classrooms. Is that not "the premises of a school? Or since no school is actually conducted in the hallways, that I can carry there, since the portion of the building where there is school is actually the rooms?

TXI - I think that is exactly what it means. If it isn't used for school business at all, then it isn't a part of the school premises. An office used by a teacher would be used for school business, but the daycare portion of a building would not be part of a school - even if there was a school in another part of the building. The portion thereof stuff was added to REDUCE the amount of building that was a school, not increase it.

This is what I understood from reading it and from Charles here. I would love to be corrected if I am wrong as I am in the same boat as a guy from above as my kid's daycare also has a kindergarden. It is my understanding that I am legal...

txinvestigator wrote:

Kalrog wrote:

aguyindallas wrote:It is named "xxxxx xxxxx" Private School and Care.

According to their website, they have Private Kindergarden, so that pretty much makes it an educational facility/school.

Only the portion of the building being used as a school (Kindergarden). The day care portions of the building are still open to you.

On what do you base that? 46.03 states;



(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,

It is not indicate that in only includes "the portion or specific area of the premises", etc.

This was something that we went over a while back on this forum and there was a section in there that mentioned building or portion of a building... that is why the person who shared a building with a school (rental property for both of them) could carry to his office and to the bathroom as well since it wasn't part of the school but a different portion of the building. This is one of those things that has changed since the original passage of the law and I am searching for it now. I'll edit and update this post when I have that for you.


*EDIT*
Found what I was looking for. Check section 46.035 for the definition of premises.

46.035 (f) (3) ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area."

*EDIT2*
Oh, and check 46.03 (c) (1) to see that it uses the definition of premises as defined above.

aguyindallas wrote:It is named "xxxxx xxxxx" Private School and Care.

According to their website, they have Private Kindergarden, so that pretty much makes it an educational facility/school.

Only the portion of the building being used as a school (Kindergarden). The day care portions of the building are still open to you.

I am properly ashamed of my lack of reading comprehension.

I agree with your statement about the first question - since the law says own or control. I would again say you can carry however you want since you own it.

I disagree with your answer to the second question. Barres has a CHL (correct?) so he can carry concealed anywhere not prohibited and a daycare is not a prohibited place if it doesn't post a proper 30.06 sign. I don't think that a daycare meets the definition of a school...