TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote:You're talking about two different levels of authority. "They" who allow me to wear certain clothes, I think if I'm understanding you correctly, is an employer, so yeah as long as it's legal it's none of their business what I wear under my approved work attire.

It seems you're saying both 30.06 and company policy don't apply in buildings either, as long as the gun is concealed under your clothing. I disagree but don't have the time to debate this further, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Annoyed Man wrote:So what you're saying then is that, if those 30.06 signs had been posted at the parking lot entrances instead of the building entrances, then I couldn't even park there and secure my weapon in the car?

That's how I read the law. Neither 30.05 nor 30.06 exclude parking lots or other grounds. Both refer to property, which is different than premises, in defining the offense. Furthermore, 30.05 explicitly references forest land and agricultural land, which are obviously not buildings but are property that can be posted.

The ExxonMobil facility at 3120 Buffalo Speedway in Houston has signs at the entrance gate, and I think that makes the whole property inside the gates legally posted, but IANAL.

austinrealtor wrote:This is all very simple to me. My car, my rules. If you allow me to park my car on your property, then you allow anything I have in my car at the time.

Permission to park is not unconditional. You may have permission to park but your vehicle may be towed, and you may face disciplinary action, if you park in a spot reserved for executives or handicapped individuals, or violate other parking rules.

Extending your argument, 30.06 and 46.03 and 46.035 would be generally invalid, because if they allow you to wear clothes they must allow anything you have under your clothes at the time. That's obviously a flawed argument, and would invalidate a Terry Stop because what's under the suspect's clothes is none of their business.

3dfxMM wrote:The first one describes the case where the individual was not effectively notified in compliance with 30.06.

The second one is talking about places that are statutorily prohibited, not private businesses posting 30.06 signs.

46.035 is not 30.06 nor 30.05

For people that think 30.05 and 30.06 apply only to buildings, I encourage you to jump the fence at a critical infrastructure facility and base your legal defense on the fact you didn't enter a building.

Charger wrote:What is more important, a person's right to defend themselves from bodily harm, or a company's private property rights?

A property owner's right to control firearms on their private property is more important than

• The government's power to restrict adults from having firearms in public schools
• The government's power to restrict jurors from carrying in public courts
• The government's power to restrict voters from carrying in polling places
• The government's power to unilaterally restrict licensed carry in bars, at sporting events, etc.
• The government's power to restrict open carry by licensed citizens
• The government's power to restrict unlicensed carry by adult non-felons
• The government's power to restrict private ownership of automatic weapons, silencers, etc.