TexasCHLforum.com

I have been reading this forum daily for months now and have enjoyed learning. I have not joined or posted until today because, well, I don’t believe I have anything to contribute. I have however run into a situation twice recently and I am unable to find an answer anywhere on this forum or anywhere else.
Let me preface this by saying I believe I know the answer but would like other opinions.

PC 46.03 PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits and offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) On the physical premises of a school or educational institution, or any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; …..

Now for the situation I am having trouble with. On the Fourth of July our town was having fireworks at the lake. Due to all of the heavy rain preceding that day the city decided to ban all parking at the lake. They were running shuttles from the high school to the lake. I have two little ones who wanted to go to the fireworks. When we get to the shuttles they were big yellow school busses. Thankfully there was a very large line and very few busses running so I talked the family into driving to a hillside close by to watch from there. I knew the law but it not being to or from an educational institution confused me a little. The next day I searched for an answer to the question if it would have been legal or not and could find nothing. I assumed this was a fluke I would not encounter again and let it go.

Last weekend we went to New Braunfels to go rafting down the Guadalupe. We were getting ready to go and they came to pick us up to be taken to the drop off point in…you guessed it, another yellow bus. I may have been very old and short but it was still yellow and had the words School Bus on the top. I will leave it to your imagination to decide if I carried on the bus or went back to the safe in my van.

Now I know the intention of a law and the letter of the law are two different things. I understand and agree with not carrying on a school bus. The only person that should be old enough would be the driver. But in both cases it was a mix of adults and children and was not at all associated with a school in any way except the transportation. The law as it is written says absolutely nothing about whether the school bus is or is not going to a school function so….
Opinions and legal advice would be welcome. Thank you for teaching me a lot already

Sorry for such a long post...just wanted to explain completely.

Were the busses owned by a school district?

If the activity was not associated with the school district I wonder who has the authority to say yay or nay on the use of the busses. I know you can be on school property while carrying although not inside the buildings, unless it is at a school sponsored activity. Not sure how that applies to the busses that are not being used for a school sponsored activity.

thats a great question.
I would GUESS that you would be ok. as there is no school function involved. but then again. gonna watch this thread and hope to learn something new.
thank you

Oh, but what if you forgot it and left your GUN on the bus. Think of the carnage Monday morning!

Yeah, and what if the gun went off and shot the tire or the gas tank or somethin, Oh the Humanity!!!

BB 09 wrote:PC 46.03 PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits and offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) On the physical premises of a school or educational institution, or any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; …..

Welcome, BB, to a great place to ask questions like yours. Asking a good question is a form of participation even if you don't yet has answers to contribute. Good luck with your CHL.

Interpreting this section of the law based on rules of grammar, I believe you cannot carry on "a passenger transportation vehicle of (plain meaning = that is owned by a) school or educational institution, whether public or private..." So when in doubt, either do not carry or else verify to your satisfaction that the old "school bus" is NOT owned by an educational institution.

There's more than the loss of your CHL if you violate this law - as danpaw pointed out.

Hope this helps, BB.

With my understanding of the law, and I'm not an attorney, I would not carry on a school bus owned by a public or private school. There are, however, many surplus school buses owned by private individuals and companies. On those, I would carry.

I would like to be straight on this one too. Hopefully Charles or someone else that is a lawyer will get in on it.

To add a slight wrinkle to this thread I will add some information. From what I found, some School Busses are owned by a 3rd party and “leased” to school districts during the school year. It appears they are also leased to others during their down time. Even of those owned by the school district, some are leased out during the summer to various organizations. I do not know if this is the case here locally or not. Does this muddy the already murky water?

BB 09 wrote:To add a slight wrinkle to this thread I will add some information. From what I found, some School Busses are owned by a 3rd party and “leased” to school districts during the school year. It appears they are also leased to others during their down time. Even of those owned by the school district, some are leased out during the summer to various organizations. I do not know if this is the case here locally or not. Does this muddy the already murky water?

Yes, BB, having the buses owned by the leasing company and leased to (or even operated for the school district) does muddy the waters substantially. Now I believe the interpretation would rest with the local prosecutor to whom the case would be offered by the police investigators. (The beat cop or deputy is not going to be making this call.) If the DA wants to push the case, he will argue with some validity that a lease is a form of an ownership interest and is sufficient to satisfy the "of" word in the statute. The defense (that you'd be hiring to keep you from getting a conviction and losing your license) would be arguing that the word "of" relates to the true ownership of the bus by the leasing company and so there was no violation. Both attorneys would be looking for cases defining the word "of" to support their position and be briefing it for the judge trying the case - or the appeals court hearing your appeal if you lost, again at your expense.

So who do I think would win or lose if such a criminal case was tried to a jury? Depends on the 12 jurors seated - unless the judge ruled that "of" means the school district was the subject of this clause of the law - which takes that determination from the jury.

Personally, not a legal opinion to be relied upon although IAAL and disclaiming any and all attorney-client relationship, I think the CHL LOSES because of the plain language (from a lawyer's perspective) and knowing a leasehold is a form of ownership interest, subject to reading the actual lease contract.

So don't you love the complexities of the law and why there is NO CLEAR CUT RULE YOU CAN RELY ON. BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY. DON'T CARRY ON A SCHOOL BUS!!! Unless you want to assume the risk of arrest, jail and prosecution and the loss of your CHL and more.

Just my $.02 and worth exactly what you paid for it - nothing! Good evening.

PS Don't be surprised if another attorney comes back with a different conclusion. That is what the practice of law is all about - arguing and trying to convince a jury or judge or judges that you argument is better.

I agree with TXlaw1 only up to a point (even though he is obviously better trained on the law than I am - he is a lawyer and I am not). There is another section of the law where the word "of" is used the same way and does not require ownership (as currently interpreted). That is in the definition of a police vehicle (a unit of a police agency). With so many Constable units requiring officers to supply their own cars, and so many departments where officers supply their own bikes, I would say of is going to be interpreted to mean recognized as operated under the authority of the district. This clarifies some situations and muddies other.

For example, Durham School Services is popular in our part of the state for supplying school buses to districts. They operate them during the year for the school district. If it is controlled by the district then I would say the law applied. In this case, did the district authorize the use by the city? That would indicate to me that they were school buses and illegal. If Durham authorized the lease, then they were not school buses for that trip and you would have been okay. If the bus was actually owned by the district, even if leased to the city for the show, I would say the law still applied.

For the tubing part, I would recommend checking carefully. Many of the outfitters buy old used buses. They may look like or even have old wording claiming to be a school bus (which should have been painted over) but they are really just private buses. In that case, obviously you could carry unless there was a 30.06 sign on the bus door.

My second point of disagreement is in who will make the call. It is a minor technical point, but the beat cop will make the call first not the DA. If the beat cop agrees with you or decides to handle the case by getting you off the bus and out of the area, the DA will never know. The way it works is that a beat cop always makes the first decision, the supervisor may overrule it but cannot make the decision unless on the scene. The DA gets a chance to overrule the beat cop, then the grand jury gets their chance to overrule the DA. The judge and petit jury get their chance to overrule the grand jury and the appeals court can overrule the trial court. You can see the pattern I am sure, but the only time anyone gets to overrule the beat cop is if he decides to arrest or write the report to file charges. No one that is not on the scene can overturn his decision to let you go and trash the case. My personal opinion is that this is why we see so little case law on things like 30.06 violations - cops handle them without arrests.

Steve, you make several excellent points that I'll agree with.

First, the Durham bus situation certainly complicates the application of this law if they use those buses for non-school events. Whether the school had any control over the non-school use of the bus could influence the final judicial decision and who knows where this would come down.

Second, obviously the beat cop makes the first decision - to arrest or not. But my point was that if he decides to proceed with an arrest, you are not going to talk him out of it by any argument about the application of this statute and the meaning of that clause.

Third, we are fortunate that probably many, if not most, 30.06 cases are decided by the beat cop favorably to the CHL holder. But in some locations the political environment may not allow them to do that.

Finally, as always, we agree that CHLs must check carefully the situation and then decide how to proceed. Its the old risk-reward analysis. That's life. Make it a great one.

Thanks for your comments, Steve.

Thank you all for your advice so far. It appears this situation is murky to others also.

I believe the school bus at the outfitter on the river was privately owned. I do not know this for sure but it was very old and looked as if it was owned by the company. However it still was yellow and black with the words “School Bus” clearly across the top. It would have been easier if we were stepping on a Partridge Family style bus.

Being someone who wants to always follow the law and do the right thing, but at the same time being able to protect and defend myself and my family, how would I know that a big yellow bus is privately owned? How do you determine if it is an old bus that should have been painted but was not?

I apologize but there are very few people who know I carry. That is in my opinion an excellent advantage of concealed carry the concealed part. I don’t want to tip my hand asking “who owns this bus”.

Again this is a situation I have not run into before and may very well never run into again. I would just like to know and the line is blurry at best.

BB 09 wrote:Being someone who wants to always follow the law and do the right thing, but at the same time being able to protect and defend myself and my family, how would I know that a big yellow bus is privately owned? How do you determine if it is an old bus that should have been painted but was not?

Well, if it were me on that tubing trip, I would ask the outfitter. "Say, is that a real school bus that you guys lease from a school district, or do you guys actually own this one and just never repainted it?"

An outfitter is not likely to discern the intent of the question. For all he knows, you're just curious about the bus. For all you know, maybe lots of other customers ask the same question out of curiosity. It's an innocent question, but it will help you make your decision.