Carrying at School Function?

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

TPC §46.03
Sec. 46.03.AAPLACES 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


The blue portion is what I believe you are talking about. However, after that is a comma and you can see what the red states.

[Keith B]

TPC §46.03
Sec. 46.03.AAPLACES 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

This one

I see Dicion's point, but still not sure. The issue here is, does the law mean any gounds, anywhere? Or do they mean grounds owned by the school (i.e. football practice outside the school at their practice field, etc.) In recalling Charles posts, I think Charles was stating what dicion alluded to that they don't have control of the grounds that they don't own. However, if I were a prosecutor, I would argue that the school leased the facility, and in fact DO have the authority to tell you you can't carry at their function and in attendance, so the statute would be in affect as the law was written to prohibit carry at a school function on grounds where the function was occurring. This would force a ruling on the meaning of grounds in the statute (maybe not in our favor) and the interpretation would be defined and precedence set.

[dicion]

However, if I were a prosecutor, I would argue that the school leased the facility, and in fact DO have the authority to tell you you can't carry at their function and in attendance, so the statute would be in affect as the law was written to prohibit carry at a school function on grounds where the function was occurring. This would force a ruling on the meaning of grounds in the statute (maybe not in our favor) and the interpretation would be defined and precedence set.

I completely agree here. If, under terms of the lease, the school was given complete legal control over the facility, then it would be a good show in court, to say the least.

However, in my experience, when renting a hall such as this (Which I actually do fairly often), you do not get full legal control of it. Eg, the hotel still provides cleaning services, power, water, janitorial facilities, beverage services, etc. They retain the 'ownership' rights, they are still responsible for 'security' and they still retain the right to deny entry, or eject persons they want to. The hotel would still retain the right to 'veto' any permission granted by the school to carry a firearm, so IMO therefore it would still not apply. Specifically, if the school signed a contract for the hall stating that 'No Weapons were allowed', they would potentially specifically waive their right to grant permission, therefore invalidating the statute, allowing CHL's to carry Have I lost you yet?

For a one-night prom hall rental, I do not see the school gaining complete legal authority over the facility. Without such, the section does not apply.

Btw, I'm not trying to be a pain about this, I am just trying to explain this the best that I understand it

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

no pain...I believe this is a healthy debate as it seems it could go either way and it is important to know the law.

I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.

[dicion]

no pain...I believe this is a healthy debate as it seems it could go either way and it is important to know the law.

I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree.

That's Fine

I would really like to have Charles Chime in here, would be informational for all parties involved

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I would really like to have Charles Chime in here, would be informational for all parties involved

Now that I can agree with

[srothstein]

I have read Charles opinion on this matter in the past, and generally have come to agree with it. But the cited opinion dealt with the very general public being on a place where the school happens to have an activity.

This case has two very specific differences, which MAY make a difference in the opinion. The first difference is the person carrying is specifically involved with the school and the event. To be honest, I can see how this might change things but I really don't think it does. To me, that makes it much like any other employer-employee relationship, if Charles is correct in his logic.

But, the second does make an extreme difference. The school leased the rooms the prom is being held in. This gives them the control over the property necessary to make a criminal trespass charge stick. Not the entire hotel, certainly, but the rooms they prom is using. For example, if a student brought a date that did not meet the schools rules, the school could bar the date from entering and have them arrested for criminal trespass if they refused to leave the room. This makes it a significant difference and leads me to believe that the prom room itself would be banned from carrying.

Of course, I was wrong on the original rule, so I could be wrong again.

[mr surveyor]

here's an additional twist to the same subject.....

in the past, on probably many occassions, schools have been destroyed by tornadoes, floods, fires, or other disasters. Churches, private warehouses, and other facilities have been leased to the school district to hold classes in temporarily until other facilities actually "owned" by the ISD can be built. The ISD obviously does NOT own the church, but still handles the daily routine in the temporarily leased facilities. Any different than leasing a hotel room for a school event?



surv

[dicion]

But, the second does make an extreme difference. The school leased the rooms the prom is being held in. This gives them the control over the property necessary to make a criminal trespass charge stick. Not the entire hotel, certainly, but the rooms they prom is using. For example, if a student brought a date that did not meet the schools rules, the school could bar the date from entering and have them arrested for criminal trespass if they refused to leave the room. This makes it a significant difference and leads me to believe that the prom room itself would be banned from carrying.

Of course, I was wrong on the original rule, so I could be wrong again.

I agree here, and this would be for a jury to decide based on the individual situation and lease involved.

Let me give my experience with renting event halls.

I have rented halls much larger than this prom hall probably will be, and for longer periods of time. Think George R. Brown size, for a 4-day weekend.
Everything we did had to be approved by the facility, and while we were allowed to prevent people from entering our hall for any reason we wanted, I sincerely doubt we could have pursued criminal trespass on anyone we ejected directly. We would have had to go through the venue itself in order to do so. The venues have always reserved all rights to remove anyone from their property that we were renting that they so desired. In doing so, IMO, they reserved the right to pursue criminal trespass themselves. I'm not sure on the law, but If they reserve this right, I believe that means that it does not transfer to the persons/entity renting the hall. The lessee would have to go through the leaser in order to pursue any.

Think of it this way. Would the Gun Show at the GRB itself be the ones pursuing criminal trespass, or would it be the GRB management? More than likely, the latter.

The long-term lease of the School buildings is a different matter, IMO, and legal authority over criminal trespass probably would transfer in that case, namely because the owner(s) of the buildings would not be there generally while the school was in session.

[tiger1873]

My thought it is this.

If you know the School is sponsoring and event you should not carry. That the way I read the law. In this case since your chaperon the event you obviously know it is a school event.

If your joe public staying in the hotel and just show staying at the hotel you would be fine carrying there since a reasonable person would not know a school even is being held there. Reasonable Person is the language you want to think of. Of course if you go down to the lobby and see and see a prom is going on you should be aware that function is going on and try and avoid that area completely if you plan on carrying . In the case of the OP I would not carry there better to leave it in the car.

[ralewis]

Put this on the list of confusing and conflicting aspects of CHL law that ought to be addressed.....Seems to me the replies are about even split between yes and no, which to me means it's totally unclear and conclusions are based on perspective rather than law.