Jim,
Two technical corrections about criminal trespass. The first is that the law says that it is a crime as soon as it is broken. It does not require a warning first. What you have stated is true in practice as most cops will not arrest for the violation until they ask the person to leave. But that is the practice and not the law. I think (can't prove but I really do believe) that 30.06 will be handled the same way by most cops.
The second correction is that in most cases, criminal trespass is a class B, not a class C. It gets enhanced to A if it is a home (habitation) or if a weapon is carried (and I have already said this should be changed to used and not just carried).
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Who's for less Prohibited places?”
- Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:16 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Who's for less Prohibited places?
- Replies: 71
- Views: 5161
- Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:02 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Who's for less Prohibited places?
- Replies: 71
- Views: 5161
Re: Who's for less Prohibited places?
Well, on a philosophical basis, I might agree to one prohibited place, but only one. And I really do think that is best handled in other ways. The place I am thinking of is the polling place. It is critical that we do not allow anyone to intimidate others while voting. But I think the better way to handle that is through better laws and enforcement on intimidation.
The only place I do support any restrictions is private property. If I own the property, I get to say what goes on there. This is probably the single point on which more of us will disagree than any other. But that is my take on it, even though I can see some merit to the other side of the issue. And if I do restrict, it should be the same as any other trespass case. The mere fact that you had a weapon on you at the time should not upgrade the case (as it does now). I prefer to see any of our laws of this type changed to if you USE the weapon (either actual force or threat of force) and not just carry it.
But, I also agree with Jim that as a practical matter, these are not going to change soon. If we can get the one change I think is most needed through during this session, I will be happy with that step. We need to define educational instittuion as a public primary or secondary school (private is already eligible for 30.06 so it should be enough). We also need to calrify, as part of this, what is meant by a school activity on grounds and exactly where that applies.
Later on, we can work on more changes, but if we keep getting one or two through per session, with no losses, our children should be free again. We might be, but that would be a good legacy.
The only place I do support any restrictions is private property. If I own the property, I get to say what goes on there. This is probably the single point on which more of us will disagree than any other. But that is my take on it, even though I can see some merit to the other side of the issue. And if I do restrict, it should be the same as any other trespass case. The mere fact that you had a weapon on you at the time should not upgrade the case (as it does now). I prefer to see any of our laws of this type changed to if you USE the weapon (either actual force or threat of force) and not just carry it.
But, I also agree with Jim that as a practical matter, these are not going to change soon. If we can get the one change I think is most needed through during this session, I will be happy with that step. We need to define educational instittuion as a public primary or secondary school (private is already eligible for 30.06 so it should be enough). We also need to calrify, as part of this, what is meant by a school activity on grounds and exactly where that applies.
Later on, we can work on more changes, but if we keep getting one or two through per session, with no losses, our children should be free again. We might be, but that would be a good legacy.