Two questions regarding legal carry

[aguyindallas]

I too am concerned about the Day Care/Private School situation.

So, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong:

1. Day Care Centers are NOT off limits to CHL holders unless properly posted...correct?

2. Private Schools are not governed by the TEA, therefore, NOT off limits to CHL holders unless properly posted...correct?

My daycare IS what I "think" also a "Private School" so I need to be 1000000% sure about this.

Advice guys.....?

[txinvestigator]

I too am concerned about the Day Care/Private School situation.

So, PLEASE correct me if I am wrong:

1. Day Care Centers are NOT off limits to CHL holders unless properly posted...correct?

2. Private Schools are not governed by the TEA, therefore, NOT off limits to CHL holders unless properly posted...correct?

My daycare IS what I "think" also a "Private School" so I need to be 1000000% sure about this.

Advice guys.....?

The law does not state ANYTHING about TEA governend schools, in fact


46.03 Places Weapon Prohibited

(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


I don't think you should depend on what some lady at DPS tell you, unless you speak to one of the Troopers who teach the instructor school or you speak to the attorney in Legal.

It is clear that the law does not stipulate that the school must be governed by TEA. By Educational institution we mean primary, secondary and college.

Why do you think your daycare is also a private school?

[aguyindallas]

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.

I guess I have to keep unholstering and reholstering when I drop of kiddos.

[Kalrog]

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.

[txinvestigator]

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.

[pastor1]

No, indeed, privite schools are not accredited by TEA. That's why private secondary schools are not required to administer the TAKS test to their students. They are not accredited by the state and thus don't get funding by the state. They are, however, considered a privite educational facility and thus concealed carry there or on their transportation vehicles is a felony. The Texas concealed handgun laws do not delve into the issue of what it defines as a school or educational institution but the Texas Eduaction Agency does, which is the state governing entity of all public schools. Day care facilities are goverened by the state but are not considered an educational facility and thus concealed carry there or on their vehicles is not illegal. If this were not true, then you would have to take your gun off when you pick up your kids from a day care that's also a privite home. This type of place must be licensed by the state but is not, repeat not, considered a school by the state. Of course, if they have signage (30.06) or have given verbal communication that weapons are not to be carried there then it becomes a trespass issue. I researched this issue by going to the state attorney general's opinions and by calling the DPS yesterday. I'm a teacher and a pastor at a church with a day care. So this issue has been quite important to me. As to asking a trooper about the issue, I did. One attends our church and told me he believes that if you keep your weapon in your vehicle in the school parking lot, you've broken state law. He was wrong. By the way, I really enjoy discussing these issues with ya'll. I'm not a "know it all" by any means and I apologize if I appear to be one. If I'm wrong on any point please correct me.

[txinvestigator]

No, indeed, privite schools are not accredited by TEA. That's why private secondary schools are not required to administer the TAKS test to their students. They are not accredited by the state and thus don't get funding by the state. They are, however, considered a privite educational facility and thus concealed carry there or on their transportation vehicles is a felony. The Texas concealed handgun laws do not delve into the issue of what it defines as a school or educational institution but the Texas Eduaction Agency does, which is the state governing entity of all public schools. Day care facilities are goverened by the state but are not considered an educational facility and thus concealed carry there or on their vehicles is not illegal. If this were not true, then you would have to take your gun off when you pick up your kids from a day care that's also a privite home. This type of place must be licensed by the state but is not, repeat not, considered a school by the state. Of course, if they have signage (30.06) or have given verbal communication that weapons are not to be carried there then it becomes a trespass issue. I researched this issue by going to the state attorney general's opinions and by calling the DPS yesterday. I'm a teacher and a pastor at a church with a day care. So this issue has been quite important to me. As to asking a trooper about the issue, I did. One attends our church and told me he believes that if you keep your weapon in your vehicle in the school parking lot, you've broken state law. He was wrong. By the way, I really enjoy discussing these issues with ya'll. I'm not a "know it all" by any means and I apologize if I appear to be one. If I'm wrong on any point please correct me.

I agree with you on all but one point. I suggested only paying attention to the advice of one of the Troopers who teach the instructor school . The other Troopers will not be nearly as knowledgeable.

[Kalrog]

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.

[txinvestigator]

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.

Well aware of that. That does not mean that if a school is in one portion and not in another, then you can carry in the part that is not a school.

If they had just written that "premises means a building", then a school that only was contained in portion of a building would not meet the definition.

By adding that premises include a portion of a building, then even a school that is only in a portion of a building meets the definition.

I don't see the definition as excluding the other areas of the building.

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?

[Kalrog]

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...

[pastor1]

txinvesigator, I'm sure you're right. The instructors would have to be more informed and thus a better source of correct information. I would have quoted you but I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

[longtooth]

Two preachers in the same boat. I did it one time & can't figure it out again.

[Kalrog]

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

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...

[Kalrog]

*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.