TexasCHLforum.com

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:00 pm

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.

My interest in creating this threat was twofold really. First, this is one of the areas that needs some clarification. it' creates a lot of angst among new licensees. In all reality it's probably unlikely that you'd ever be prosecuted even given the most aggressive interpretation of a school sponsored activity. I know i've never heard of it happening.

Second and more importantly... I think this is an area that is taught inconsistently in the LTC course. There should be no room for interpretation on the part of the instructors when it comes to off limits locations. In this specific case a friend of mine was told specifically he HAD to vacate the premises of a Whataburger if a high school volleyball team stopped for lunch there.

I appreciate everyone's responses, but it confirms my original belief that this is not as crystal clear as it should be.

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.... ;)

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.