Do I correctly understand the law?

[Hoi Polloi]

One of the primary differences in this scenario for someone working for a university versus another employer is in the event of theft. If someone breaks into your car and steals your weapon or even steals your entire car while on university property, the campus police department will be the agency filing the police report - not HPD or DPD or whatever city department in which the university is located.

Thanks for this post; I never thought of that angle. A theft under these circumstances would force you to disclose something that may well cost you your job in addition to losing a car/gun. More ammo for the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. (Yeah, the pun was intended.)

Chas.

Need more ammo? Imagine driving on campus just to get to the parking lot and being pulled over by the campus police. If you had a weapon in your vehicle, at that point you are obligated to present your CHL. We all know what the next question from the officer is.

OK, stupid question. I know it is an easy one.

If you're carrying in the car, couldn't you claim that you're carrying under MPA and not present the CHL? Is one legally obligated to present the CHL then? Only when carrying under the CHL, right?

But then it will come back on the license check and he can ask. But then you can respond that you are not currently carrying under the authority of your CHL. Then he can ask if you have any weapons in the car. Then when you say yes, the officer is ticked and throws the book at you, right?

[boba]

Silence is Golden.

[3dfxMM]

Only when carrying under the CHL, right?

No. If you have your weapon and you are asked for ID by a LEO or magistrate, you have to provide both DL/ID and CHL. This would be true even if you were in your own home.

[dicion]

Only when carrying under the CHL, right?

No. If you have your weapon and you are asked for ID by a LEO or magistrate, you have to provide both DL/ID and CHL. This would be true even if you were in your own home.

Correct. There is no stipulation under Section 411 that you have to be carrying under a CHL's authority to be required to present it.
If you have a handgun, and a CHL, no matter what authority you are carrying under, you must present it, even in your own home, as mentioned above.

This technically even applies to a police officer carrying at a Professional Football Game, for example.

[Hoi Polloi]

Thank you gentlemen!

[dicion]

One of the primary differences in this scenario for someone working for a university versus another employer is in the event of theft. If someone breaks into your car and steals your weapon or even steals your entire car while on university property, the campus police department will be the agency filing the police report - not HPD or DPD or whatever city department in which the university is located.

Thanks for this post; I never thought of that angle. A theft under these circumstances would force you to disclose something that may well cost you your job in addition to losing a car/gun. More ammo for the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. (Yeah, the pun was intended.)

Chas.

Need more ammo? Imagine driving on campus just to get to the parking lot and being pulled over by the campus police. If you had a weapon in your vehicle, at that point you are obligated to present your CHL. We all know what the next question from the officer is.

Excellent points!

My question is, wouldn't the officers, if they informed the school about your CHL and Carry, be violating the privacy provisions of the law? Eg, DPS is not supposed to disclose this information, according to the statutes, unless they notify you that they disclose it. Technically, you should be getting a notification every time an officer runs your DL# and gets a CHL Hit on their Mobile terminal. If the officers informed the university of your CHL and Carry status, would they be liable if you got fired because of it?

I don't know.. I need to read through the statutes on this again, so I'm just posing food for thought...

EDIT: Read through it, and it says that DPS can only disclose information to "a criminal justice agency", which a university PD counts as, sure.
However, there is no stipulation on what the PD can do with that information once they receive it, at least not in section 411. It would sure be nice if there was a clause in there that stated that this information was considered confidential, and may not be shared by the requesting agency with anyone outside the agency. As it appears right now, a PD could request info on any random number of people, and then publish the information in, say, the Barnacle, and not get dinged for it. That doesn't seem right to me.

[baldeagle]

As I understand the law, having read all of the posts in response to my question, 30.06 (3) (B) (e) exempts an employee of a state-owned educational institution from the requirement to comply with employer rules regarding carrying weapons in one's vehicle and securing them in the vehicle before entering the premises. Therefore, if a campus police officer were to pull such an employee over for just cause, although the employee is required by law to provide the officer with both TX D/L and CHL, the employee would not have violated any laws by carrying and would not be sanctionable by the employer. Even if a state-owned educational institution had a written policy regarding firearms, that policy could not supercede the law, which specifically exempts government entities from the right to enforce a parking lot firearm ban.

If anyone can dispute this reading of the law, I'm perfectly willing to listen.

[cbr600]

IANAL but it looks like (e) says it's not a crime under those conditions. It doesn't say you can't be fired or disciplined by your employer.

[dicion]

As I understand the law, having read all of the posts in response to my question, 30.06 (3) (B) (e) exempts an employee of a state-owned educational institution from the requirement to comply with employer rules regarding carrying weapons in one's vehicle and securing them in the vehicle before entering the premises. Therefore, if a campus police officer were to pull such an employee over for just cause, although the employee is required by law to provide the officer with both TX D/L and CHL, the employee would not have violated any laws by carrying and would not be sanctionable by the employer. Even if a state-owned educational institution had a written policy regarding firearms, that policy could not supercede the law, which specifically exempts government entities from the right to enforce a parking lot firearm ban.

If anyone can dispute this reading of the law, I'm perfectly willing to listen.

Maybe....

But in Texas they can fire you for anything. So while they won't claim it's about the gun.... it will be.

[baldeagle]

As I understand the law, having read all of the posts in response to my question, 30.06 (3) (B) (e) exempts an employee of a state-owned educational institution from the requirement to comply with employer rules regarding carrying weapons in one's vehicle and securing them in the vehicle before entering the premises. Therefore, if a campus police officer were to pull such an employee over for just cause, although the employee is required by law to provide the officer with both TX D/L and CHL, the employee would not have violated any laws by carrying and would not be sanctionable by the employer. Even if a state-owned educational institution had a written policy regarding firearms, that policy could not supercede the law, which specifically exempts government entities from the right to enforce a parking lot firearm ban.

If anyone can dispute this reading of the law, I'm perfectly willing to listen.

Maybe....

But in Texas they can fire you for anything. So while they won't claim it's about the gun.... it will be.

That is not something I fear. Not where I work.

[Hoi Polloi]

Maybe....

But in Texas they can fire you for anything. So while they won't claim it's about the gun.... it will be.

That is not something I fear. Not where I work.

There are times when fear is good. It must keep its watchful place at the heart's controls. ~Aeschylus

[Scott Farkus]

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chap- ter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that: (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart. (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the
owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section: (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means: (A) a card or other document on which is written language
identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (con- cealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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, if I'm reading section (3)(B)(e) correctly, a state-owned educational institution cannot prohibit carrying in their parking lots because they are a government entity.

That would mean that I can carry to work, secure my weapon in the car while I'm at work, then carry again when I leave for the day. That's satisfactory to me until campus carry get's passed.

edit: I brought this up a few months ago and Mr. Cotton's answer was that they (the state agency) can't prohibit the public from carrying but they CAN prohibit their employees from doing it. What sense does that make?

viewtopic.php?t=36144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Scott Farkus]

, but as an employee, you are required to follow the personnel policies of your employer

Required by what? Employer Policy? Sounds like Circular logic "You are required, by employer policy, to follow employer policies!"
You don't HAVE to follow employer policies. it is not the LAW to comply with employer policies.

You have to comply with that or risk being fired on the spot if caught.

That's the only repercussion. It is not illegal, so it's up to you if you consider the risk worth the reward.
Is there a chance they'll search your vehicle? How often has this happened in the past? Do they even know what vehicle is yours?
These are all questions you have to ask yourself and determine if it's worth it to you.

Yes, there is always a chance they'll search your vehicle. That's also in the personnel manual. I've not heard of anyone having had it done to them, but that's not to say it never has or never will. If they have cause to suspect you, they'll do it in a heartbeat and not blink twice. I know that they do spot checks of our computers and have fired people in the past for having downloaded a personal picture for use as their screensaver. And yes, they know which vehicle is mine because we are required to keep a numbered parking tag on the back windshield in order to park in the lot. We are also required to report any violations of agency policy (not just this one, but anything) to our supervisors immediately, so if I slip up and mention something to a coworker about having a firearm in my truck (or if someone overhears me talking about it on the phone or something), they are then in a position where they have to rat me out or risk being in violation themselves, and that's not a position I want to risk putting anybody in. And, I often drive co-workers including my supervisor to off-premise meetings, lunches, etc. in my vehicle and it wouldn't take much for someone to find a firearm or evidence of one no matter how careful I am about hiding it.

So no, even though I hate this job and despise the administration that runs this place, I need the income and all the rest that it provides so the risk/reward is not worth it to me right now.

[dicion]

So no, even though I hate this job and despise the administration that runs this place, I need the income and all the rest that it provides so the risk/reward is not worth it to me right now.

Well then, I believe you've answered your own question

[baldeagle]

That's an interesting interpretation and I wish it was true. I'd love to rub it into the face of the moron who taught our employee orientation last year who repeatedly insisted after I challenged him that it was not just our agency's policy, it was STATE LAW that we were not allowed to keep our handguns in our cars on their parking lot. Unfortunately, my gut tells me that this is not what it means. For one thing, the term "government entity" is very broad. I suppose state law could apply to counties and cities but the state can't dictate what the federal government does, so I would think that that language on its face would be invalid. But again, I'm not a lawyer and can't say for sure.

Not to be argumentative, but you could just as easily make the case that this section exempts "government entity", however defined, from the 30.06 signage requirements.

I don't know. I'm very confused.

Not surprising. The law can be very confusing to us laymen. You seem to be referring to a federal institution, however. Federal institutions are not controlled by state laws. They are controlled by federal laws.

With regard to the Texas state law and its application to institutions of higher education, however, I looked for a definition of "government entity" in the Texas Statutes. I found this in the Government Code.

(2) "Governmental entity" means:

(A) the state;

(B) a municipality, county, public school district, or special-purpose district or authority;

(C) a district, county, or justice of the peace court;

(D) a board, commission, department, office, or other agency in the executive branch of state government, including an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code;

(E) the legislature or a legislative agency; or

(F) the Supreme Court of Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, a court of appeals, or the State Bar of Texas or another judicial agency having statewide jurisdiction.

Section 61.003 of the Education Code reads, in part:

(8) "Institution of higher education" means any public technical institute, public junior college, public senior college or university, medical or dental unit, public state college, or other agency of higher education as defined in this section.

So, this confirms, it seems to me, that public higher educational institutions are governmental entities under the definitions provided for both in the Texas Statutes. That leaves only the proper interpretation of 30.06 to determine if employees of public higher education institutions can secure their weapons in their vehicles in the parking lots of those institutions.

I believe the key words with regard to this question are " It is an exception to the application of this section". So what is "the application of this section"? I believe it is "A license holder commits an offense if [he]...carries a handgun.....on property of another without effective consent and received notice".

Hopefully Charles will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the law says that you can carry a weapon on the property but not the premises of a public institution of higher education with or without the effective consent of that institution. That would mean that, if we hold the Deadly Force Seminar at a public institution of higher education anywhere in the state, attendees can carry their weapons to the event and secure them in their vehicles.

I welcome any lawyers on the forum to correct me if my interpretation of the law is flawed.