It says "property of another" so it looks like it applies to any property that isn't yours. I suspect it applies to real property and not all tangible personal property but IANAL and the last time I slept at a Holiday Inn Express was in June.3dfxMM wrote:I am waiting for someone to help clarify the wording in 30.05 regarding what types of property it applies to.
Workplace Policy with New Law
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
I was talking about the part right after the part you quoted.
"including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle,"
"including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle,"
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
I think those are examples and not an exclusive list. What if ACME has a manufacturing facility and erects a fence around the property? The fenced area is not on that list, but I think somebody who climbs the fence and skulks around without permission is trespassing.
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Actually, fencing is called out as a specific form of "notice".tbrown wrote:I think those are examples and not an exclusive list. What if ACME has a manufacturing facility and erects a fence around the property? The fenced area is not on that list, but I think somebody who climbs the fence and skulks around without permission is trespassing.
The list reads more like it is intended to limit the types of property that are included. If all property were intended to be included, there would be no reason to list specific examples.
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
What if I drive to a business, park my car in their lot, and just sit there for hours? Are you really suggesting that a company can't use the trespass laws to make me leave because parking lots aren't specifically mentioned?
If that's your belief, I won't waste any more time.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5508/b5508f8a183c0449de230eca4e2b8782220adba0" alt="tiphat :tiphat:"
If that's your belief, I won't waste any more time.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5508/b5508f8a183c0449de230eca4e2b8782220adba0" alt="tiphat :tiphat:"
sent to you from my safe space in the hill country
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
No need to be an ass about it. I specifically said that was how it read to me. I have asked for an explanation and have not yet heard anything that sounds very authoritative.
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
I would invite you and 3dfxMM to re-read the following thread.sjfcontrol wrote: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.C-dub wrote: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.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It contains such gems as this.
I added the red color to the important part.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
- Location: Flint, TX
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Absolutely no argument with that. Yes, if you're carrying in your car, you must produce your CHL if asked. But that does NOT mean you are carrying under it's authority. Read the red part again -- especially the "regardless whether they are carrying under the authority..." part.C-dub wrote: I would invite you and 3dfxMM to re-read the following thread.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46515" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It contains such gems as this.
I added the red color to the important part.Charles L. Cotton wrote:You're not argumentative at all. At first blush, what I posted appears to conflict with Tex. Gov't Code §411.205, but there is no conflict. In order for Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to a person, they must be carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL. However, Gov't Code §411.205 imposes a duty to display a license on every armed CHL, regardless whether they are carrying under the authority of their licenses. Therefore, it would apply in our cars, homes, sporting events, etc.
Chas.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db414/db41495f43121feccfbbedb9dffb63e6102fb5cf" alt="Image"
Never Forget.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db414/db41495f43121feccfbbedb9dffb63e6102fb5cf" alt="Image"
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
- Location: Flint, TX
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Ok, but it also doesnt make sense that we would LOSE rights/privileges by getting a license. Not that EITHER of us will get far arguing legal "logic". I believe that it was an oversight that the law requires the display of the license when carrying regardless of whether it's being used. Of course when that law was passed the only legal way to carry was with a CHL. So back then there was no distinction. Only when MPA was passed did it matter.C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
And it's not really a matter of "choosing" how we carry. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doEs not apply to CHL holders. But it already doesn't apply if you meet the 46.02(a-1) (MPA) section. So, since the CHL exception isn't needed, you're not carrying under it.
Easy-peazy!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/da38c/da38c4424aae2a8f75c082dcbac9a84cf1343ba2" alt="Mr. Green :mrgreen:"
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db414/db41495f43121feccfbbedb9dffb63e6102fb5cf" alt="Image"
Never Forget.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db414/db41495f43121feccfbbedb9dffb63e6102fb5cf" alt="Image"
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:31 pm
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
They can post a sign banning all firearms just as easy. Look at the pix in the Polycom thread.40khammer wrote:Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
Correct! And I'm looking into making that a possibility.unhappycamper wrote:They can post a sign banning all firearms just as easy. Look at the pix in the Polycom thread.40khammer wrote:Wanna solve this whole problem? Keep a shotgun in your car instead of a handgun. Then you're definitely not carrying under the CHL so there's no question.
Unless I'm reading wrong.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
I didn't look at it as losing rights, but possibly incorrectly viewing them as two different things. The MPA has muddied the waters for situations like this. Hopefully, as issues like this are discovered, they will get clarified in the next session.sjfcontrol wrote:Ok, but it also doesnt make sense that we would LOSE rights/privileges by getting a license. Not that EITHER of us will get far arguing legal "logic". I believe that it was an oversight that the law requires the display of the license when carrying regardless of whether it's being used. Of course when that law was passed the only legal way to carry was with a CHL. So back then there was no distinction. Only when MPA was passed did it matter.C-dub wrote:Hmmm. I can be convinced, but it won't be easy. It doesn't make any sense to me that if one has a CHL that they could choose to carry under any other authority other than that CHL because we do have to display our license when asked for ID by a Texas LEO.
And it's not really a matter of "choosing" how we carry. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doEs not apply to CHL holders. But it already doesn't apply if you meet the 46.02(a-1) (MPA) section. So, since the CHL exception isn't needed, you're not carrying under it.
Easy-peazy!
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
-
- Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:31 pm
Re: Workplace Policy with New Law
The notification requirement never made sense. It was probably added by Burnam or another gun hater.