Workplace Policy with New Law

[3dfxMM]

I am still not 100% on the 30.05 claim (haven't read it through yet), but I stand by the fact that the 30.06 sign has no meaning if the firearm stays in the car since the person with the firearm in their car is not carrying under the authority of their CHL until they step out of their car with the firearm.

[3dfxMM]

30.05 seems to specify that the property be of a certain type and parking lots for your average businesses do not seem to qualify. Parking garages may if they are considered to be buildings. Again, I am not 100% sure on any of this. I will need to read it a few more times before I trust my understanding of it. Any clarification you can give will be welcome.

[apostate]

Criminal Trespass (30.05) applies to property in general, not only to buildings. As an example, consider rural property - it can be posted (or notice given another way) even if there are no buildings on the land.

[3dfxMM]

I was just going by the wording in the code.

[C-dub]

I am still not 100% on the 30.05 claim (haven't read it through yet), but I stand by the fact that the 30.06 sign has no meaning if the firearm stays in the car since the person with the firearm in their car is not carrying under the authority of their CHL until they step out of their car with the firearm.

If you have a CHL you cannot claim to be carrying under MPA. I think Charles has even agreed on this. You are probably aware that the penalty for not presenting your CHL to a LEO when asked for ID has been removed. However, what has not been decided is what will happen after the officer runs your DL and discovers your CHL and specifically asks for it and you cannot produce it if you've forgotten it at home, but are still carrying. I think we would still be in trouble at that point, but would yield to the possibility of being let off if we were still inside our vehicle. I would not count on it and am not willing to try it out.

[Vertigo73]

New here... was about to make my first post when I saw this thread and decided to read it first. Hi!

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read this situation is this. My car is my property and an extension of my home. Employer owned or not, the parking garage 30.06 sign does not apply until I get out of my car and set foot onto their property.

[apostate]

My car is my property and an extension of my home.

Welcome to the discussion. I agree your car is your property, but that does not necessarily mean it's an extension of your home. For example, a handgun in my home need not be concealed but in Texas I am required to conceal in my car to stay legal.

[Vertigo73]

My car is my property and an extension of my home.

Welcome to the discussion. I agree your car is your property, but that does not necessarily mean it's an extension of your home. For example, a handgun in my home need not be concealed but in Texas I am required to conceal in my car to stay legal.

Good point, poor wording on my part. Let me clarify the way I intended for it to mean.

Inside of my car is my property. Employer owned parking lot or not, the parking garage 30.06 sign does not apply until I get out of my car and set foot onto their property. I read it to mean I can't walk through their garage carrying a firearm.

[srothstein]

Vertigo73,

Your thinking may be a good way to take a ride to jail. Texas law does not recognize that a car is an extension of a home.

[EDIT as Vertigo73 was typing as I was]: You may be right in your explanation, but the law does not recognize it for the reason you state. You must be very careful in dealing with how you feel about things and what the law actually says. Your logic may be true in some cases, but can cause a problem when extended.


As for the others, I thought I would point out a rather unusual loophole in the law. For a person without a CHL, you may be carrying in the car under the MPA. This is because your lCHL is an exception to the law, but having a pistol in your car is not a violation of the law to need an exception. This is important because 30.06 only applies when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL (and this clause is in and of itself proof that you may be carrying under some other authority - or it would not be in the law).

But 30.05 does not apply to a person with a CHL and a pistol of the type licensed for, if that is the reason for the trespass notice. The important part here is that it does not say carrying under the authority, but just the conditions I mentioned.

So, if a person with a CHL drives into a parking lot with a concealed pistol, he can ignore both the 30.06 and 30.05 signs that say no weapons are allowed. I will agree that this is a fine line to be walking and generally don't recommend relying on loopholes, but this is what a strict reading of the law says.

[apostate]

So, if a person with a CHL drives into a parking lot with a concealed pistol, he can ignore both the 30.06 and 30.05 signs that say no weapons are allowed. I will agree that this is a fine line to be walking and generally don't recommend relying on loopholes, but this is what a strict reading of the law says.

Perhaps. I submit we won't know until there's case law. The argument can be made that by asserting the defense to prosecution in 30.05, you're implicitly carrying under the authority of your CHL, because you don't get the defense to prosecution w/o the CHL.

Well, not you personally (if you're still a peace officer) but I suspect you get my point.

[Vertigo73]

Vertigo73,

[EDIT as Vertigo73 was typing as I was]: You may be right in your explanation, but the law does not recognize it for the reason you state. You must be very careful in dealing with how you feel about things and what the law actually says. Your logic may be true in some cases, but can cause a problem when extended.

Please explain, I'm here to learn.

I was under the impression that HB1815 granted us the right to carry a firearm in our vehicle.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1815" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"H.B. No. 1815

AN ACT
relating to the prosecution of certain offenses that involve
carrying weapons on a person's property or in a person's vehicle.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.02, Penal Code, is amended by
amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (a-1) and (a-2) to
read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person [he]
intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or
her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the
person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle
that is owned by the person or under the person's control."

Do you feel it's not considered under my control when I exit the vehicle? I don't feel that way, as I own the vehicle and I still retain the only set of keys in my pocket.

My vehicle may be on their property, but my firearm is not so long as I leave it in my vehicle until I return. I view it as being on my property, to which they have no right of access.

I'm no lawyer, but that's my simpleton interpretation of what I see. Again I'm open to other views if you can explain it. I don't wish to break the law, but perhaps I am just seeing it the way I wish to?

Thank you, as I'm learning a lot here.

Vertigo

[C-dub]

It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.

[sjfcontrol]

It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.

That is your opinion. As srothstein stated, the CHL is an exception to the law. If you're not breaking the law (which you're not in a car with a concealed gun), you don't need that exception, and therefore are not carrying under Subchapter H, Chapter 411.

[3dfxMM]

It does, but if one has a CHL and they have a handgun with them off of their own property or home they are always carrying under the authority of that CHL. We cannot claim to be carrying in our vehicles under the MPA whenever it suits us.

That is your opinion. As srothstein stated, the CHL is an exception to the law. If you're not breaking the law (which you're not in a car with a concealed gun), you don't need that exception, and therefore are not carrying under Subchapter H, Chapter 411.

This is my understanding also.

I am waiting for someone to help clarify the wording in 30.05 regarding what types of property it applies to.

[PvilleStang]

Hey, if it's concealed in a locked console and you don't skip around the garage saying its there, I see a non-issue. Food for thought, a ton of the downtown Austin garages are state owned and operated.

I'm still irritated I work for the state as a contractor and they "ban" guns from the premises. I haven't bothererd carrying to work and leaving it in the car, but now that my center console locks and I've given up drinking during the week, I might consider it...