Racetrack Definition

[thetexan]

That's not true.

There are sectional definitions and global definition which apply to those specific sections or to the whole. In this case there is no global or sectional definition for "building". As per SI the court would first use ordinary meaning and usage absent any legal definition. And in the pursuit of that might very well take a previous definition from another section. Not because they must but because they may, as long as it doesn't do violence to reasonability or cause the greater statute to become unconstitutional where a different interpretation might not.

Regardless, I find no definition, and if not, we must admit that the court would have to interpret and thus we are at the mercy of whatever that interpretation might be.

tex

[apostate]

Well, under their interpretation of "does not apply" we're at their mercy any time we carry.

[ScottDLS]

That's not true.

There are sectional definitions and global definition which apply to those specific sections or to the whole. In this case there is no global or sectional definition for "building". As per SI the court would first use ordinary meaning and usage absent any legal definition. And in the pursuit of that might very well take a previous definition from another section. Not because they must but because they may, as long as it doesn't do violence to reasonability or cause the greater statute to become unconstitutional where a different interpretation might not.

Regardless, I find no definition, and if not, we must admit that the court would have to interpret and thus we are at the mercy of whatever that interpretation might be.

tex

This is true.

In the penal code, in the absence of a specific definition that applies to a particular chapter, you go to any other definition in the PENAL CODE, then elsewhere in Texas statutes, then to the common definition.

--- Or are you saying, for example The Chapter 46 definition of "intoxication" is left to interpretation despite having a legal definition in Chapter 49. I wonder why DPS put it in the CHL-16?

-----The definition of building is in Chapter 30, just like the definition of weapon, handgun, and firearm is in chapter 46. For trespassing in Chapter 30 the Chapter 46 definitions of these terms applies.

[thetexan]

That's not true.

There are sectional definitions and global definition which apply to those specific sections or to the whole. In this case there is no global or sectional definition for "building". As per SI the court would first use ordinary meaning and usage absent any legal definition. And in the pursuit of that might very well take a previous definition from another section. Not because they must but because they may, as long as it doesn't do violence to reasonability or cause the greater statute to become unconstitutional where a different interpretation might not.

Regardless, I find no definition, and if not, we must admit that the court would have to interpret and thus we are at the mercy of whatever that interpretation might be.

tex

This is true.

In the penal code, in the absence of a specific definition that applies to a particular chapter, you go to any other definition in the PENAL CODE, then elsewhere in Texas statutes, then to the common definition.

When a definition states "in this chapter" or "in this subsection" "such and such means..." that's exactly and precisely what it means. That was the case for the old definition of concealed handgun that only applied in 411. That is the case of premises which means one thing in 46.02 and something else in 46.035.

--- Or are you saying, for example The Chapter 46 definition of "intoxication" is left to interpretation despite having a legal definition in Chapter 49. I wonder why DPS put it in the CHL-16?

You may be right. I guess in the absence of sectional definitions, definitions elsewhere would be used.

-----The definition of building is in Chapter 30, just like the definition of weapon, handgun, and firearm is in chapter 46. For trespassing in Chapter 30 the Chapter 46 definitions of these terms applies.


Then we are back to the original question and problem. If that is so then sitting in the stands at a racetrack, not being an enclosed structure, would not be a "building or portion of a building" under the "premises" of a racetrack definition, huh?

tex

[ScottDLS]

I'm thinking you could argue that Racetrack seating is part of a "building" by the PC Chapter 30 meaning. The Racetracks (parimutuel betting tracks, is what they are referring to specifically) that I have been to are similar to stadiums where the seating is "on" a "building" that encloses the betting windows, concessions, bathrooms, etc. Where I don't think the term building would apply would be outdoor open bleachers that were not "enclosing" anything.

Example: I don't think the 46.035 definition of premises applies to Fair Park in Dallas where there are numerous 51% licensee stands, but you don't go in them to get your drink.

[thetexan]

I'm thinking you could argue that Racetrack seating is part of a "building" by the PC Chapter 30 meaning. The Racetracks (parimutuel betting tracks, is what they are referring to specifically) that I have been to are similar to stadiums where the seating is "on" a "building" that encloses the betting windows, concessions, bathrooms, etc. Where I don't think the term building would apply would be outdoor open bleachers that were not "enclosing" anything.

Example: I don't think the 46.035 definition of premises applies to Fair Park in Dallas where there are numerous 51% licensee stands, but you don't go in them to get your drink.

Well, that's what I thought before I knew there was a definition. It seemed to me that building, in its broadest sense, would be a construction including bleachers, and, without a definition we would either assume that or interpret that it didn't include those kinds of structures. In the latter case allowing us to sit in the bleachers by the strict reading of the rule.

tex

[Zoo]

If a building doesn't require a roof, then my fenced-in back yard is a building. Actually, it's a portion of a building because it's attached to my house. So if I'm in my house and see somebody enter my back yard, that's part of the same building, and I have all the presumptions afforded by the penal code for somebody unlawfully entering my occupied dwelling.