TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Now,regarding a police stop, you are still required to display your CHL license (though there is no penalty if you don't) even though you're carrying under MPA. Why? Because the law that states you have to display says you have to do that if you are licensed, and armed. It does NOT say if you're carrying under its authority. That is what causes many to claim that CHL "trumps" MPA -- it doesn't.

By the way. If you search the archives you'll find that both Charles and srothstein agree with these opinions.

(and I've convinced Keith B of this twice now... )

Oh I believe you. It just runs counter to previously established "board opinion." But this does beg the question..... If you are carrying under under authority of MPA while driving your car—even though you have a CHL—then how can the 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance apply to you, since it has no force over MPA? ........as in, "yes, I drove past the sign with my gun in my possession, because while I'm driving, MPA supersedes CHL." Not trying to argue, but doesn't that seem like a logical inconsistency to you?

It doesn't apply to you, no inconsistency there. It does apply if you're not driving (or out of your car).

by the way. I should note there is no case law regarding any of this. I am not a lawyer... yada, yada, yada...

OK, that is consistent then. I always assumed that we were talking about driving into a parking lot which was posted at the entrance.

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Now,regarding a police stop, you are still required to display your CHL license (though there is no penalty if you don't) even though you're carrying under MPA. Why? Because the law that states you have to display says you have to do that if you are licensed, and armed. It does NOT say if you're carrying under its authority. That is what causes many to claim that CHL "trumps" MPA -- it doesn't.

By the way. If you search the archives you'll find that both Charles and srothstein agree with these opinions.

(and I've convinced Keith B of this twice now... )

Oh I believe you. It just runs counter to previously established "board opinion." But this does beg the question..... If you are carrying under under authority of MPA while driving your car—even though you have a CHL—then how can the 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance apply to you, since it has no force over MPA? ........as in, "yes, I drove past the sign with my gun in my possession, because while I'm driving, MPA supersedes CHL." Not trying to argue, but doesn't that seem like a logical inconsistency to you?

sjfcontrol wrote:Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:First, I am not a lawyer....

30.06 applies to "premises." AFAIK, the definition of premises in the law includes buildings or parts of buildings, but does not include parking lots. Furthermore, the parking lot bill was supposed to give employees the right to secure their weapon in their car.

Actually, the 30.06 SIGN refers to "property", not "premesis".

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06,
PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN)
A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS
PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

So what about So 46.035(f)(3) exempting parking lots, and 30.06 saying that it is an exemption to the law if it is not a premises prohibited by 46.035? How does the law reconcile those two things?

First, I am not a lawyer....

30.06 applies to "premises." AFAIK, the definition of premises in the law includes buildings or parts of buildings, but does not include parking lots. Furthermore, the parking lot bill was supposed to give employees the right to secure their weapon in their car.

§ 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.

• (c) In this section:
  • (1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

• (f) In this section:
  • (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.

It is not clear to me from reading 30.06 whether it could include a parking lot or not, but for sure a 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance would be irrelevant to someone carrying a firearm under MPA in their vehicle. But I note the following:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.

• (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

So 46.035(f)(3) exempts parking lots, and 30.06 says that it is an exemption to the law if it is not a premises prohibited by 46.035. I think that the upshot is....you might be fired, but you won't be prosecuted. And you could claim wrongful termination because the parking lot bill specifically protects CHL holders.....

.....so the bottom line? I don't know.