TML Q&A

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe that 30.05 applies to carry without a license though....... So this should not affect someone carrying concealed or openly under authority of their CHL or LTC, because the license allows carry past a 30.05 sign..... Which is why 30.05 signs posted on buildings prior to passage of OC did not apply to CHLs. Passage of OC did not rewrite 30.05. If they want to keep you out, they still have to try and change the law to allow posting of 30.06 and 30.07 signs......which ain't a gonna happen.

[C-dub]

I think TAM is correct. Way down in 30.05 it says that a CHL, or now LTC, is a defense to prosecution.

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... pBnB7.dpuf

[ScottDLS]

But....But....but...you'll take the ride because it's just a Defense to Prosecution....

[Charles L. Cotton]

But....But....but...you'll take the ride because it's just a Defense to Prosecution....

Do you know of this ever happening? Since HB2909 passed in 1997, I haven't heard of a single situation where a person was arrested for violation of TPC §30.05 based on the fact that they were an armed CHL. Also, no one takes the ride unless the DA's office says they will accept charges.

Chas.

[WildBill]

But....But....but...you'll take the ride because it's just a Defense to Prosecution....

Do you know of this ever happening? Since HB2909 passed in 1997, I haven't heard of a single situation where a person was arrested for violation of TPC §30.05 based on the fact that they were an armed CHL. Also, no one takes the ride unless the DA's office says they will accept charges.

Chas.

I think ScottDLS is being facetious.

[rc-mike]

As I read the document The section "Can a city prohibit firearms in a city building or facility?" has two sub-headings...

"Concealed or Open Handgun Carry by Handgun License Holder"

and

"Firearms in General"

I think they intended the second heading to be for non-chl holders, as the talked about them specifically in the section above.

-Mike-

[ScottDLS]

But....But....but...you'll take the ride because it's just a Defense to Prosecution....

Do you know of this ever happening? Since HB2909 passed in 1997, I haven't heard of a single situation where a person was arrested for violation of TPC §30.05 based on the fact that they were an armed CHL. Also, no one takes the ride unless the DA's office says they will accept charges.

Chas.

Another of my weak attempts at humor. And to further your point from 1995 - 1997 CHL was explicitly only a Defense to 46.02, and I believe even all the current 46.15 exceptions have been ruled to be Defenses. It's like the "theoretical" taking the ride for speeding, even though jail time is not a penalty. It's as rare as the pink unicorn.