Workplace Policy with New Law

[unhappycamper]

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.

Actually, fencing is called out as a specific form of "notice".

Build a fence around the parking lot. Easy-peazy!

[srothstein]

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.

Well, let me make it easy for you. Suppose I am an active peace officer. Now suppose I got my CHL so I can buy guns without waiting for the NICS check (which I don't trust). Can I carry a gun into a bar that is posted with a 51 sign? Of course I can since I am a peace officer and that law does not apply to me, right? That clearly indicates that there are times when a person may have multiple exceptions to the laws on unlawfully carrying and can choose which authority he is carrying under.

But, since I still am a CHL, I must show my CHL when I get stopped by another officer. There is no exception in the display requirement for peace officer.

So, if that can be true, then the choice of authority when one is an exception to the law and one is the law not including the act must be true. In that case you are not really choosing which authority, the law is by making car carry legal.

Does that help a little?

[srothstein]

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

It clearly applies to all types of property. The exact wording of the law says:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

Note that it lists several types of property as included, but does not say limited to. As you read the law further, it defines some special types of property for upgraded offenses that must be included but are not listed, such as superfund sites or forest land or protected freshwater area. So, it must include parking lots as a type of property.

[srothstein]

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.

It does make this legal. But what it does not do is make the vehicle an extension of your home. What I was warning you about is the logical and emotional jump from something being legal to your thinking of it as an extension of your home.

For example, the car carry is allowed only if you are not committing other crimes and keep the weapon concealed. Your home does not have these same requirements. If the vehicle were truly an extension of your home, the pistol would not have to stay concealed.

One of the other major areas that this could really bite you on is a search. Courts allow a person's home a lot more protection under the Fourth Amendment than they do a car. It is much harder to justify a search under exigent circumstances for a house while the mere fact that it is a car is very close to all you need to justify a search without a warrant (assuming probable cause exists of course). if the car were truly an extension of your home, then the search of the car would be much much harder to justify.

The reason I get so strident on this is that it could bite someone. We all tend to use shortcuts in our speech. And most times, as long as the idea is understood, I don't worry too much. This is why I don't worry too much about clips versus magazines, for example. But when a person is talking about concepts that might change their understanding of the law, it can lead to a faulty judgement that puts someone in jail. So, I try to make sure that the concept is understood properly. In this case, I really get bothered by someone thinking of car as extension of home since I see someone going to jail over the misunderstanding. I apologize if I was too strident and confused you or made you doubt your understanding of this law.

[Vertigo73]

It does make this legal. But what it does not do is make the vehicle an extension of your home...

We all tend to use shortcuts in our speech...

I apologize if I was too strident and confused you or made you doubt your understanding of this law.

I'm not sure now, but I was under the impression that you had seen my clarification. I did "use a shortcut" in my speech. I posted a follow up to try and more accurately word my intended meaning, but I think that still fell a bit short of the mark. (http://www.texaschlforum.com./viewtopic ... 15#p595200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
I really didn't mean it was an extension of the home, and frankly I'm not sure why I worded it that way.

No need to apologize, but I appreciate your willingness to do so.

To further clarify, I just don't think that 30.06 applies in a parking garage, given the state of our current laws/rights. It may have been valid in 1995 when we first earned the right to aquire a CHL license, but not any more. I very well may be wrong (again, I'm not a lawyer), but here is why I interpret it this way. The rights afforded by the CHL are only in effect when you get out of your car, due to the right to carry within the car granted by the MPA. The right to carry due to the MPA is a change to our native right to all citizens provided they follow the itemized stipulations of the MPA. The MPA isn't the "exception", it's the "rule". The CHL rights are exceptions to the standard prohibitions of carry under other circumstances. It grants us specific rights we would not ordinarily have. In this case, the right to carry that firearm when you get out of your car. At which point, the 30.06 sign would be in full force.

Therefore, if the gun is sitting in the car while you are in work, the 30.06 sign is irrelevant IMO. Again, I'm no lawyer, so this is not legal advise. I don't proclaim to be an expert on the subject, and have no knowledge of case law. It's just how I see it, based on my own interpretation. For now, it's I will base my decision unless someone has more compelling reasoning to the contrary. I welcome all input.

Thanks,

Vertigo

[3dfxMM]

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

It clearly applies to all types of property. The exact wording of the law says:

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:

Note that it lists several types of property as included, but does not say limited to. As you read the law further, it defines some special types of property for upgraded offenses that must be included but are not listed, such as superfund sites or forest land or protected freshwater area. So, it must include parking lots as a type of property.

Thank you. I don't agree with you about it "clearly" applying to all types of property or I wouldn't have been asking in the first place. :)

I still do not understand why they felt the need to specifically mention certain types of property if the law includes all types of property.

[tacticool]

If the online arguments aren't convincing, I suggest you go somewhere with a no trespassing sign and refuse to leave. Maybe the judge can explain it better than we can.

[C-dub]

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.

Well, let me make it easy for you. Suppose I am an active peace officer. Now suppose I got my CHL so I can buy guns without waiting for the NICS check (which I don't trust). Can I carry a gun into a bar that is posted with a 51 sign? Of course I can since I am a peace officer and that law does not apply to me, right? That clearly indicates that there are times when a person may have multiple exceptions to the laws on unlawfully carrying and can choose which authority he is carrying under.

But, since I still am a CHL, I must show my CHL when I get stopped by another officer. There is no exception in the display requirement for peace officer.

So, if that can be true, then the choice of authority when one is an exception to the law and one is the law not including the act must be true. In that case you are not really choosing which authority, the law is by making car carry legal.

Does that help a little?

I can see the benefit of a LEO getting a CHL in order to forego the NICS check, but even that's not that intrusive. Before I had my CHL they told me the wait might only be 20-30 minutes. And the person is still always a LEO and reaps the benefits from being a LEO.

You're saying that if I don't take my gun with me from the car except at home or to and from my business then I wouldn't need to ever have my CHL license with me to show a LEO in Texas? Since the penalty has been removed for not displaying and if I'm only carrying under the authority of the MPA I wouldn't even have a duty to show my CHL to a LEO if asked for ID? Even if I'm in the car? Am I on track here or have I got it twisted in my head again?

[apostate]

If you have a handgun on or about your person in the car, you're still required to display but there's no penalty if you don't. In that sense, it's similar to many laws that state a government employee (or agency) "shall" do something, but provide no penalty for noncompliance. A prime example would be several years ago when CHL applications were not processed by DPS in a timely fashion.

[C-dub]

If you have a handgun on or about your person in the car, you're still required to display but there's no penalty if you don't. In that sense, it's similar to many laws that state a government employee (or agency) "shall" do something, but provide no penalty for noncompliance. A prime example would be several years ago when CHL applications were not processed by DPS in a timely fashion.

Right, but where I'm still hung up on that is when the LEO asks for our CHL license. If we have it we might have forgotten to give it to the LEO and that penalty has been removed. What I wonder about is what will happen when the LEO returns from their car and asks for it and I either choose not to provide or am unable to do so, while claiming to be carrying under the MPA.

[Jusster]

If you have a handgun on or about your person in the car, you're still required to display but there's no penalty if you don't. In that sense, it's similar to many laws that state a government employee (or agency) "shall" do something, but provide no penalty for noncompliance. A prime example would be several years ago when CHL applications were not processed by DPS in a timely fashion.

Right, but where I'm still hung up on that is when the LEO asks for our CHL license. If we have it we might have forgotten to give it to the LEO and that penalty has been removed. What I wonder about is what will happen when the LEO returns from their car and asks for it and I either choose not to provide or am unable to do so, while claiming to be carrying under the MPA.

I would hope nothing would happen to you, after all anyone can carry in their car under the MPA. BUT, I was told by my CHL instructor that when they run your license they will know you may have a gun. At this point I would think they will approach you with caution and ask if you have any weapons in the car, because he stated that it does not distinguish between a CHL holder, LEO, or just AMWG. I don’t know if that is exactly true or not (maybe someone from LEO can verify this), but he seemed pretty convincing when I asked him about it. Others without a CHL don’t have to worry about this issue. I guess that’s why we are required to show both DL and CHL when requested to do so.


Jusster

[johnson0317]

I don't think it has so much to do with whether or not you have a weapon in the vehicle, or whether or not you are operating under the MPA. I think it has more to do with them being able to ask for it. Doesn't the law say you have to produce it when asked for it? I may be a little gray in this area, and on my temples, mustache, beard, eyebrows, chest...well, let's just stop there.

RJ

[C-dub]

I don't think it has so much to do with whether or not you have a weapon in the vehicle, or whether or not you are operating under the MPA. I think it has more to do with them being able to ask for it. Doesn't the law say you have to produce it when asked for it? I may be a little gray in this area, and on my temples, mustache, beard, eyebrows, chest...well, let's just stop there.

RJ

It does and that is where I have a problem with a person that has a CHL claiming they are carrying under the MPA. It has happened to me before where I have left the house and forgotten my wallet, but remembered my gun. I usually only get a block or two away before making the discovery and return to get the wallet with my licenses. I can't see it going very well if I were stopped and were unable to produce a CHL license and try claiming I was carrying under the MPA. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see that going well for me.

[speedsix]

...if the gun wasn't concealed on your person, and WAS concealed in the car...you've broken no law...even concealed on your person IN THE CAR you haven't...if he asks you to step out and you're wearing it...problems...you don't FORFEIT MPA because you have a CHL...your wife or son may have left their gun in your car...

[3dfxMM]

I don't think it has so much to do with whether or not you have a weapon in the vehicle, or whether or not you are operating under the MPA. I think it has more to do with them being able to ask for it. Doesn't the law say you have to produce it when asked for it? I may be a little gray in this area, and on my temples, mustache, beard, eyebrows, chest...well, let's just stop there.

RJ

It does and that is where I have a problem with a person that has a CHL claiming they are carrying under the MPA. It has happened to me before where I have left the house and forgotten my wallet, but remembered my gun. I usually only get a block or two away before making the discovery and return to get the wallet with my licenses. I can't see it going very well if I were stopped and were unable to produce a CHL license and try claiming I was carrying under the MPA. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see that going well for me.

Having to produce your CHL and ID when asked for ID has nothing to do with whether you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. As Mr . Rothstein pointed out, even a LEO has to produce both CHL and ID if asked even though they do not even need the CHL to be carrying a concealed handgun.