TexasCHLforum.com

tbrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots

What's your source for that? I'm asking because the 30.06 law clearly says "property" (not "premises") same as the 30.05 law before it.

That's why I used the words, "I remember that...".......as in, "I had it in my mind that....."

I've just gone back and read TPC 30.05 and 30.06, and clearly you are correct. Equally clearly, I am disappointed. It kinda makes one want to consider calculated decisions to break the law. I know that you can't make an argument for breaking the law, except that I'd rather be tried by 12 than buried by six. That raises a philosophical question.....

A few days ago, somebody I know made such a calculated decision when he was scouting potential photography sites in the Grapevine area and decided to take a look at one of the picnic sites along the north shore of Grapevine Lake, which is COE land. This person was carrying a firearm under the authority of his CHL, and he drove into the picnic area (after paying the entry fee). I'm told that the entrances are clearly posted with "No Firearms" signs. Anyway, this guy drove around a few of the picnic sites, actually got out of his car at one of them to take a look around, didn't see anything that interested him, got back into his car and left. I happen to know that this guy has no criminal record, not even for the most minor misdemeanors. He's never been arrested. He's sober. He's active in his church and a stable contributing member of his community. His last moving violation in a vehicle was 13 years ago.

From what I've described, this person clearly did break the law, but he's not really a criminal.....not like you think of criminals. I know him pretty well. Did he do wrong?

chlag01 wrote:Update. I decided to leave the unenforceable policy alone, and did not notify. However, they have now stepped up their game. As of today, there are new 30.06 signs posted at the parking lot entrances. I'm guessing they are placed by the property manager of the business complex my employer leases from.

I've started a new thread asking whether they've exploited an SB 321 loophole by having the property manager prohibit storing firearms in the parking lot instead of the employer.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

-- Frustrated

My response to your opening post would have been, "let sleeping dogs lie." Stirring a hornet's nest never results in a good day for the guy with the stick.

I suspect that, over the next 12-24 months we're going to see more and more businesses resort to what your company appears to have done—which is to band together with other tenants to ask the property managers to post 30.06 signs at the parking lot entrances. When that happens, we can look forward to another kerfuffle in the legislature, where SB321 passed with a specific intent. When businesses begin to defy that intent, it's gonna get ugly for a while, but I predict that in the long run, we will prevail.

Has there been any case-law on the posting of 30.06 signage at parking lot entrances yet? I remember that, early on, 30.06 was intended to include only the "premises," which did not include parking lots, and that a non-employee CHL would have the right to disarm and secure their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. More and more, I see references on this board to posted parking lots. What's the deal with that?