TexasCHLforum.com

Steve, you make several excellent points that I'll agree with.

First, the Durham bus situation certainly complicates the application of this law if they use those buses for non-school events. Whether the school had any control over the non-school use of the bus could influence the final judicial decision and who knows where this would come down.

Second, obviously the beat cop makes the first decision - to arrest or not. But my point was that if he decides to proceed with an arrest, you are not going to talk him out of it by any argument about the application of this statute and the meaning of that clause.

Third, we are fortunate that probably many, if not most, 30.06 cases are decided by the beat cop favorably to the CHL holder. But in some locations the political environment may not allow them to do that.

Finally, as always, we agree that CHLs must check carefully the situation and then decide how to proceed. Its the old risk-reward analysis. That's life. Make it a great one.

Thanks for your comments, Steve.

BB 09 wrote:To add a slight wrinkle to this thread I will add some information. From what I found, some School Busses are owned by a 3rd party and “leased” to school districts during the school year. It appears they are also leased to others during their down time. Even of those owned by the school district, some are leased out during the summer to various organizations. I do not know if this is the case here locally or not. Does this muddy the already murky water?

Yes, BB, having the buses owned by the leasing company and leased to (or even operated for the school district) does muddy the waters substantially. Now I believe the interpretation would rest with the local prosecutor to whom the case would be offered by the police investigators. (The beat cop or deputy is not going to be making this call.) If the DA wants to push the case, he will argue with some validity that a lease is a form of an ownership interest and is sufficient to satisfy the "of" word in the statute. The defense (that you'd be hiring to keep you from getting a conviction and losing your license) would be arguing that the word "of" relates to the true ownership of the bus by the leasing company and so there was no violation. Both attorneys would be looking for cases defining the word "of" to support their position and be briefing it for the judge trying the case - or the appeals court hearing your appeal if you lost, again at your expense.

So who do I think would win or lose if such a criminal case was tried to a jury? Depends on the 12 jurors seated - unless the judge ruled that "of" means the school district was the subject of this clause of the law - which takes that determination from the jury.

Personally, not a legal opinion to be relied upon although IAAL and disclaiming any and all attorney-client relationship, I think the CHL LOSES because of the plain language (from a lawyer's perspective) and knowing a leasehold is a form of ownership interest, subject to reading the actual lease contract.

So don't you love the complexities of the law and why there is NO CLEAR CUT RULE YOU CAN RELY ON. BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. DON'T CARRY ON A SCHOOL BUS!!! Unless you want to assume the risk of arrest, jail and prosecution and the loss of your CHL and more.

Just my $.02 and worth exactly what you paid for it - nothing! Good evening.

PS Don't be surprised if another attorney comes back with a different conclusion. That is what the practice of law is all about - arguing and trying to convince a jury or judge or judges that you argument is better.

BB 09 wrote:PC 46.03 PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits and 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, or 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; …..

Welcome, BB, to a great place to ask questions like yours. Asking a good question is a form of participation even if you don't yet has answers to contribute. Good luck with your CHL.

Interpreting this section of the law based on rules of grammar, I believe you cannot carry on "a passenger transportation vehicle of (plain meaning = that is owned by a) school or educational institution, whether public or private..." So when in doubt, either do not carry or else verify to your satisfaction that the old "school bus" is NOT owned by an educational institution.

There's more than the loss of your CHL if you violate this law - as danpaw pointed out.

Hope this helps, BB.