TexasCHLforum.com

A friend of mine just took a LTC class this past weekend, and his instructor used an example of a scenario they needed to be careful of.

If you are in a Whataburger having lunch, and a school bus pulls up and the volleyball team comes in for lunch, the Whataburger becomes a prohibited place as long as the team is there. He advised leaving and disarming immediately in that scenario.

I felt this was a very broad definition of school sponsored activity and unreasonable, but I honestly wasn't sure. I can't find any clarification either, so thought i could post and see if anyone can point to an authoritative source that would cover this scenario.

I do not have the specific legal code documenting why this is not true, but it’s not. I’m about 99% sure that even if you walked into the restaurant and they were there before you, it would still be legal for you to carry.

I can’t believe that that’s an accurate interpretation of the law. That would mean that a school could commandeer any location they wanted to and automatically abrogate the rights of people who were there first. That’s bull. It would seem to me that the venue would have to actively participate in the planning of the event, such that they arranged in advance that the school party would be visiting, and at what time, etc., so that their regular customers could have an advanced warning and alter their plans accordingly.

If two 40 passenger school buses pull up in front of a whataburger, the regular customers, who are on lunch breaks from work and so on, are going to need to find another place to eat so that they’re not late getting back to work.....gun laws or not.

In the end, concealed is concealed. I wouldn’t let a bus load of students dictate to me that I must vacate the premises in the middle of eating my meal.

I don't disagree with any of the responses, but they once again illustrate an example of ambiguity that I hope the Legislature cleans up some day. Ideally, we'd see less prohibited places (bars and sporting events). I can live with the school prohibitions, but searching threads here on the site i found a few that showed this ambiguity was used to assert a location was a prohibited place.

That none of us (so far) has been able to cite a law/AG ruling to clarify this, I guess I can't win my argument with my friend.... ;)

ralewis wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:12 am A friend of mine just took a LTC class this past weekend, and his instructor used an example of a scenario they needed to be careful of.

If you are in a Whataburger having lunch, and a school bus pulls up and the volleyball team comes in for lunch, the Whataburger becomes a prohibited place as long as the team is there. He advised leaving and disarming immediately in that scenario.

I felt this was a very broad definition of school sponsored activity and unreasonable, but I honestly wasn't sure. I can't find any clarification either, so thought i could post and see if anyone can point to an authoritative source that would cover this scenario.

And I teach exactly the opposite, that is NOT a school sponsored activity. It's been years but don't remember anything in the instructor class that would expanded it beyond the actual game.

I’m sure Charles can point right to it, but this was specifically legislated. It had to do with the ruling to allow LTC in the Capitol building, and school kids on field trips. Only facilities completely under the control of schools. My exact recollection is a little hazy. But I do know that any place where a group of school kids, may be, does not make it a prohibited location.

IIRC, I believe Charles addressed this in one of the podcasts he did a couple of years ago. In order for a location to be considered off limits due to a school activity, the school must be in control of the facility in question.

I would like to see actual reference and documentation that a facility or ground must be under control, complete or otherwise, for the activity to be “school sponsored.”

I can't quote you a statute, but my recollection from earlier trainings is that it hinges on who controls the property. If you REALLY want to confuse yourself, consider the following;
- provided it is not a statutory proscribed location, municipal county and state property can't be posted
- private entities that rent/lease gov't property can post, but it's considered to not be enforceable

a local municipal gov't about a decade ago built a gigantic (well, for our area) convention center (174,000 sq ft, 3500 capacity) which they rent out parts or all of for all kinds of events. The local ISD's and colleges are repeat customers because they've all pretty much outgrown their own facilities in the last few decades.

- when a local high school rents the space for graduation ceremonies, they control the property and it's a school sponsored activity. But it's municipal property, so it [is, is not] enforceable if they post? Is it still enforceable under 'school sponsored activity' if they DON'T post?

Laws are laws because they have passed all of the way through the legislative process. Being clear and complete is not a requirement.

The Texas LTC handbook is available here. https://www.dps.texas.gov/InternetForms ... LTC-16.pdf
Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED begins on page 78, and says the following about schools;

(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

My opinion; outside of a designated school campus, how am I to know whether a group of people are participating in an activity sponored by the school or not unless I am directly a part of that activity?
In practice; when I have accompanied my children on school sponsored activities, I have considered it unlawful for me to carry. When I have been in a restaurant, museum, shopping area, etc. and encounter a group of young people, I have continued (carrying) through my activities as planned. I have not had that happen while open carrying, which may make it more likely that an issue is raised to begin with.
Would my reasoning hold up in a court of law? I don't know, and hope to never find out.

I side with removing the restriction completely. Return the constitutional rights to law-abiding people and focus restrictions on people who are not.

Jeff

Barring a valid reference/link/citation, I am going to continue regarding "school must be in control of the property" to be a Texas internet legend.

I can think of a more ridiculous example of this ambiguity. I have an office in downtown Dallas. Suppose I am carrying during my workday. Toward the end of the day, a school has a function 15 floors above in the sky lobby (e.g. a dance, concert, etc.). Would the premises be the whole skyscraper? If it didn't apply to my office since we are secured in a manner that the school function could not go there, would it still include the lower lobby and/or parking garage (so I would be in violation going to my car)?

I'm with TAM-- concealed means concealed. That said, these types of examples are why I would think someone carrying would win in court in the event that one of these ambiguous circumstances apply.

I cannot find it right now, but Charles has gone into this at length before. If I remember his explanation correctly, he explains that it can only apply to places where the school has control of the property to begin with. Much as the example given about the office building, consider a zoo or museum. If they allowed me in while legally carrying, and then the school shows up in a class trip, I am all of a sudden breaking the law under any other interpretation of this. How do I even get out of the zoo to put it in the car without breaking the law? The law can never be interpreted to be nonsensical.

srothstein wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:45 am I cannot find it right now, but Charles has gone into this at length before. If I remember his explanation correctly, he explains that it can only apply to places where the school has control of the property to begin with. Much as the example given about the office building, consider a zoo or museum. If they allowed me in while legally carrying, and then the school shows up in a class trip, I am all of a sudden breaking the law under any other interpretation of this. How do I even get out of the zoo to put it in the car without breaking the law? The law can never be interpreted to be nonsensical.

Were you thinking of this: SB 394 by Creighton - Clarification of School Activity Grounds (2017)

As far as I know - this one died after being reported out of the House Committee. A similar bill (HB1009) was filed in the House in 2019, but never even received a hearing.

ETA: There was a companion bill in the Senate (SB117) that also made it to the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee headed by Democrat Nicole Collier during the 2019-2020 legislative session. This seems to be another great bill that died due to the feckless leadership of Speaker Bonnen appointing Democrats as heads of significant committees.