Plano School District has 30.06 posted parking lots

[rm9792]

Churches are off-limits only if 30.06 notice is provided.

Thank you for your response! However, the current Texas Penal Code states that a Church is a prohibited place to carry. Just went to the Texas website and read it.

That law has been amended, you need to read the rest of the statute.
You can carry at church unless it is posted 30.06.

This is why they need to just remove that section. It confuses people. No need [abbreviated profanity deleted] rit to be there, same as the amusement park section.

[tbrown]

This is why they need to just remove that section. It confuses people. No need [abbreviated profanity deleted] rit to be there, same as the amusement park section.

There's really no reason for 46.035 at all, considering it doesn't apply to off duty cops. It also doesn't apply to unlicensed people with underfolder AKs in sneakybags (or tennis bags) or even open carried AR/AK. It only applies licensed people with concealed handguns.

It's a stupid law that panders to the "blood in the streets" stupid people.

[Fedaykin]

Yes, sorry about that post. I was ignorant of the way the rest of the statue was written. It is much more difficult to 'erase' a statute for legislators than it is to amend it. Rather than elminating a law, they write a new law that makes the previous one obsolete. It USED to be illegal to carry in a church. Rather than erase the law, they just added a statement about it having to be posted with a 30.06 sign.

A great example of this is in the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:

The 18th Amendment abolished Liqour.
The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

The 18th Amendment cannot be 'erased', it's a law. There's just a new law that repeals it.

(This is why lawyers make so much dang money interpreting all of this junk).

[speedsix]

...ain't it so...reckon they planned it that way?!!! Is that our benefactor over there at the corner table, chuckling quietly???

[Keith B]

OK, so here's the scoop. Neither Plano PD or the Collin County DA's office have any official written or verbal policy about enforcing these 30.06 signs. An email from an investigator in the Collin County DA's office to one of our members stated that the school may have picked up on the vagueness of the wording in the statute and thinks they may feel they are valid. However, the DA's office will not give an official opinion on this matter of course.

So, bottom line, with no official policy by PPD or the CCDA, it will be just like any other invalid posting. And if the PISD decided to call and ask the Plano PD to charge you with Criminal Trespass (30.06), it would be up to the individual officer(s) and or supervisors and they would call the DA's office to see if they want to press charges. At that point, we would know whether they want to try to push the issue or not. However, be aware that the County DA's office has been presented with the documents in the link following. One is the AG's (John Cornyn) Opinion in 2001 which prompted the introduction and passing of SB501 in 2003. They also have a copy of the HRO (House Research Organization) analysisof what the bill and wording does as far as excluding a governmental agency from posting a 30.06 sign or otherwise prohibiting legal carry if no an already off-limits location per statute.

Bottom line, while PISD may try to push the issue, I don't think it would get very far before being dropped like a hot potato and any lawyer could have a major field day if they try to prosecute.

[tbrown]

Here's an easy way to avoid the problem. Keep it concealed and don't consent to a search.

[C-dub]

Yes, sorry about that post. I was ignorant of the way the rest of the statue was written. It is much more difficult to 'erase' a statute for legislators than it is to amend it. Rather than elminating a law, they write a new law that makes the previous one obsolete. It USED to be illegal to carry in a church. Rather than erase the law, they just added a statement about it having to be posted with a 30.06 sign.

A great example of this is in the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:

The 18th Amendment abolished Liqour.
The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

The 18th Amendment cannot be 'erased', it's a law. There's just a new law that repeals it.

(This is why lawyers make so much dang money interpreting all of this junk).

That all may be true and I can't really dispute it, but there is one small example from Topeka, KS. A couple of years ago they voted to strike an entire section of their city ordinances and accidentally struck the subsection that made carrying a handgun openly illegal. Some sharp citizen noticed that and decided to OC, while walking their dog or something, and got arrested. They later found out they had nothing to charge them with and were just over what to do. Making OC illegal again came up for a vote sometime later in another city counsel meeting and it failed. In Kansas, OC is legal even without a license, but there is no state preemption. So, it is legal to OC in Topeka, Kansas, the state's capital.

[boba]

Texas does it too. SB 694 is an example discussed here recently where parts of a law were deleted.

[frogbones]

Well, I work at a ISD. The SRO at the school I work said that one cannot have a gun on school premises (talking to a coach who just got a CHL) you will be arrested .

His defenition of premises is school property when I asked what he ment about premises....I just walked away. I later approach the coach and said no disrespect to the SRO but he is incorrect about CHL and the law, I mention he read the section mention schools in the law. He said in a blow off tone, the handbook say I can't either so I guess that's trumps it all.....again I said incorrect..... handbook clearly states "I cannot carry on school premises (building ,or portion of building)". Again I stressed he read the statues regarding CHL, the Hanbook regaurding Firearms, and pointed him to this sight for more information on anything guns or CHL......he just blew me off.


Now I know Concealed is concealed, BUT they have random parking lot searches via dogs and I have the possiblity to be "marked" by the dog, and at that point I will have an issue because of how the police interperit the law...so I guess I can be a test case....though that's not my intention. My intention is self defense when coming to work(with my daughter), at lunch, leaving work (with my daughter) and anywhere in between.

Yes I keep a gun in the car secured under inlockbox while at work. Heck, I even have a copy of the sections of the law inwhich includes school, and Texas CHL statues in a folder in my glove box.


I have read and re-read all things concerning my Texas CHL, and schools. I'm completely legal....

[Keith B]

Well, I work at a ISD. The SRO at the school I work said that one cannot have a gun on school premises (talking to a coach who just got a CHL) you will be arrested .

His defenition of premises is school property when I asked what he ment about premises....I just walked away. I later approach the coach and said no disrespect to the SRO but he is incorrect about CHL and the law, I mention he read the section mention schools in the law. He said in a blow off tone, the handbook say I can't either so I guess that's trumps it all.....again I said incorrect..... handbook clearly states "I cannot carry on school premises (building ,or portion of building)". Again I stressed he read the statues regarding CHL, the Hanbook regaurding Firearms, and pointed him to this sight for more information on anything guns or CHL......he just blew me off.


Now I know Concealed is concealed, BUT they have random parking lot searches via dogs and I have the possiblity to be "marked" by the dog, and at that point I will have an issue because of how the police interpret the law...so I guess I can be a test case....though that's not my intention. My intention is self defense when coming to work(with my daughter), at lunch, leaving work (with my daughter) and anywhere in between.

Yes I keep a gun in the car secured under inlockbox while at work. Heck, I even have a copy of the sections of the law inwhich includes school, and Texas CHL statues in a folder in my glove box.


I have read and re-read all things concerning my Texas CHL, and schools. I'm completely legal....

I would say yes you are legal, but the ISD may fire you for it if they want to. Their definition of premises may be all property unless it states specifically in the employee handbook that premises is a building or portion of a building. Even then, an employer in Texas may fire for any reason.

As for the SRO, they many times don't know the full definition of the law, and you might be arrested. If so, the DA should investigate the law, or ask for a AG opinion, but they may decide to try and make you a test case. If so, you should be able to beat it in court, but it may cost you your job, a chunk of money for legal fees, then a fight to get your job and money back.

[frogbones]

Yes it states clearly "firearm cannot be carried on school premises(building or portion or building)" that is word for word out of the HB.

Yep it is a risk, and I risk I have debated with myself for a good part of 5yrs. I've come to know when the "dogs" are coming, plus I've learned they don't search the "staff" section of the lot which very little staff parks anyways because of it's distance from the entrence...I'm willing to walk a bit.

[hpcatx]

Even then, an employer in Texas may fire for any reason.

While generally true at employment in Texas is "At Will," some staff positions at public schools may fall under teachers unions and have additional negotiated rights during the termination process. It really depends on the person's employment contract. During such a termination hearing, arguments supporting the employee could be levied.

[Keith B]

Even then, an employer in Texas may fire for any reason.

While generally true at employment in Texas is "At Will," some staff positions at public schools may fall under teachers unions and have additional negotiated rights during the termination process. It really depends on the person's employment contract. During such a termination hearing, arguments supporting the employee could be levied.

Sure. There are a lot of Union-based jobs, like flight attendants, pilots, utility workers, etc. However, they can still fire you and you are off work until the Union grievance process and/or arbitration hearings are conducted and a decision is made. The only difference is you have am organization to hopefully help represent you in your fight to prove your justification and regain your employment.

[C-dub]

His defenition of premises is school property when I asked what he ment about premises....I just walked away. I later approach the coach and said no disrespect to the SRO but he is incorrect about CHL and the law, I mention he read the section mention schools in the law. He said in a blow off tone, the handbook say I can't either so I guess that's trumps it all.....again I said incorrect..... handbook clearly states "I cannot carry on school premises (building ,or portion of building)". Again I stressed he read the statues regarding CHL, the Hanbook regaurding Firearms, and pointed him to this sight for more information on anything guns or CHL......he just blew me off.

I wouldn't take it personally. There will be people you can explain things to until you're blue in the face and they still won't get it. And then there will be others that get it, but don't want to take the chance. That's their choice.