CHL-16 clarification for 30.06 sign

[lonestartools]

So, under 46.035(c) you may not carry at ANY government meeting. I was recently at Williamson County Appraisal District and they have a 46.035 blurb on stenciled on the door, stating that it is illegal to carry there due to the meetings inside. So what constitutes a government meeting? Can two people at the water cooler be a meeting or must it be a posted function? Does an organization such as WCAD imply ongoing meetings at all times? Does an appraisal protest qualify as a meeting or is a meeting between government employees only? While I won't carry ther, I would like to make sure that I teach the correct info...

[srothstein]

In the case of meetings, I would say it must meet the definition of a meeting from the Government Code (section 551.001):

(4) "Meeting" means:
(A) a deliberation between a quorum of a governmental body, or between a quorum of a governmental body and another person, during which public
business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control is discussed or considered or during which the governmental
body takes formal action; or
(B) except as otherwise provided by this subdivision, a gathering:
(i) that is conducted by the governmental body or for which the governmental body is responsible;
(ii) at which a quorum of members of the governmental body is present;
(iii) that has been called by the governmental body; and
(iv) at which the members receive information from, give information to, ask questions of, or receive questions from any third person, including an
employee of the governmental body, about the public business or public policy over which the governmental body has supervision or control.

The term does not include the gathering of a quorum of a governmental body at a social function unrelated to the public business that is conducted by the
body, or the attendance by a quorum of a governmental body at a regional, state, or national convention or workshop, ceremonial event, or press
conference, if formal action is not taken and any discussion of public business is incidental to the social function, convention, workshop, ceremonial event,
or press conference.

The term includes a session of a governmental body.

I base this on the Code Construction Act which basically says that any term not specifically defined in the code has the meaning normally used unless there is a technical meaning developed in the law.

[A-R]

Steve, do you have reference to additional info on Code Construction Act? Curious how this could be applied to definition of "intoxicated" in Penal Code Chapter 46 as well as other possibilities.

[srothstein]

The Code Construction Act is Chapter 311 of the Government Code, and can be read here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... GV.311.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The specific section I was referring to is 311.011(b) that says "Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly."

And it definitely applies to the word intoxicated. The common usage of this word is to refer specifically to legal definitions, and almost always means in reference to driving. In addition, it is specifically defined in Chapter 49 of the Penal Code. So, I see it as having gained a technical meaning both by the common usage meaning the legal one and by the law defining the term.

So, when the law says not to carry while intoxicated, I take it to mean the same standard as driving. If you are safe to drive, you are safe to carry and vice versa. And in both cases, 0 is a good recommendation but not the law.

[RPB]

Reading of Council meetings in Courtrooms ...

I thought you might enjoy this ... RE: Burnet, TX

The City Council regularly meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month at the Burnet Municipal Airport

http://www.cityofburnet.com/city_govern ... ouncil.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Municipal airport ... so city property ... city council meeting ...

Just need to determine if
1) Secured area of the airport?
If not ...
2) posted during the meeting?

[RPB]

So, under 46.035(c) you may not carry at ANY government meeting. I was recently at Williamson County Appraisal District and they have a 46.035 blurb on stenciled on the door, stating that it is illegal to carry there due to the meetings inside. So what constitutes a government meeting? Can two people at the water cooler be a meeting or must it be a posted function? Does an organization such as WCAD imply ongoing meetings at all times? Does an appraisal protest qualify as a meeting or is a meeting between government employees only? While I won't carry ther, I would like to make sure that I teach the correct info...

46.035(c) does not apply if there's not a compliant 30.06 sign... per 46.035(i)
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52783&start=15#p643532" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our Tax Appraisal district had an unenforceable non-30.06 blurb too, it got removed

Most of the time, there's just people going in to pay taxes, file documents and workers a-workin' but no "quorum" present holding a tax appraisal district board meetin' ... the 30.06 sign is only effective during a meeting, and they aren't usually havin' one.

I believe the County Judge (a CHL, as well as her husband, a District Judge) had it, the blurb sign, removed after I mentioned it to her husband one day.

[TexasGal]

Here is the code where "governmental entity" is defined.

Sec. 2252.001. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
......
(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,

[Maxwell]

Steve,

I was taught that "intoxicated" with relation to CHL fell under the same level as "Public intoxication" so it would be an officer's discretion. In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

I certainly hope you are not teaching people they can have a couple of beers and still carry...

[Keith B]

Steve,

I was taught that "intoxicated" with relation to CHL fell under the same level as "Public intoxication" so it would be an officer's discretion. In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

I certainly hope you are not teaching people they can have a couple of beers and still carry...

Intoxicated for driving, boating, flying, public intoxication and CHL is clearly spelled out in TPC 49.01 which says

(2)  "Intoxicated" means:
(A)  not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B)  having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

For CHL 46.035 refers you to Government Code 411, Subchapter H (411.171) which then references TPC 49.01.

So, for driving, public intox, or CHL it depends totally on the individual's capability to handle the alcohol AND officers discretion. Zero alcohol is not the law.

[tacticool]

In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

Did they also teach you that any sign is good enough for 30.06 notice and that churches are off limits with or without a sign? That seems to be the holy trinity for a certain type of instructor.

[wgoforth]

In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

Did they also teach you that any sign is good enough for 30.06 notice and that churches are off limits with or without a sign? That seems to be the holy trinity for a certain type of instructor.

As I have pointed out before... I would hesitate to blame the instructor altogether...that IS what is taught in instructor class by the DPS. And yes, they did also teach that all gun signs should be obeyed. Were they correct? No. But as I tried to talk with many other students in the class during break, most I talked with came away agreeing all no gun signs should be obeyed...including a lawyer in the class which I thought should have been able to read the law better than that.

We were told that the .08 is for driving only and goes out the window when it comes to CHL. We were told one could not have a wine with meal and carry and that ANY discernable amount would have us in trouble. The problem here is, that although it is not what the penal code says, the law enforcement is virtually lockstep on this. I have spoken with LEO's of many varieties on this, and all have been in agreement. Correct? No. Get in trouble for it? yes. All the instructors fault? No. Reapeating what they have been taught by those who should know.

[Keith B]

In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

Did they also teach you that any sign is good enough for 30.06 notice and that churches are off limits with or without a sign? That seems to be the holy trinity for a certain type of instructor.

As I have pointed out before... I would hesitate to blame the instructor altogether...that IS what is taught in instructor class by the DPS. And yes, they did also teach that all gun signs should be obeyed. Were they correct? No. But as I tried to talk with many other students in the class during break, most I talked with came away agreeing all no gun signs should be obeyed...including a lawyer in the class which I thought should have been able to read the law better than that.

We were told that the .08 is for driving only and goes out the window when it comes to CHL. We were told one could not have a wine with meal and carry and that ANY discernable amount would have us in trouble. The problem here is, that although it is not what the penal code says, the law enforcement is virtually lockstep on this. I have spoken with LEO's of many varieties on this, and all have been in agreement. Correct? No. Get in trouble for it? yes. All the instructors fault? No. Reapeating what they have been taught by those who should know.

I believe what is taught is that you MAY get in trouble for passing a no guns sign; the beat the rap but not the ride scenario. Also, what I believe is taught is that officers discretion plays into both driving and CHL and that the general consensus is if you are caught carrying with alcohol on your breath that most officers will be more likely to say you are not capable of making a rational decision vs. driving with a little alcohol on your system. Right or wrong on the capabilities, the 'officer discretion' side leave it open to interpretation by the individual officer.

I will know this for sure by next weekend.

[barstoolguru]

the law never says you can't drink while carrying, it just say you can't be intoxicated and that is subject to option for there is no set law that is a guild line like driving (.08)

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Edit: I will say this; if it is a mixed bar... say bar and grill... and they post a .51 red sign and you get arrested. When you; if you go to court they have to prove they are actually make 51% of their money from sales of booze and I bet most of them will not be able to do that or may not want to admit it

[wgoforth]

In other words, and with regard to CHL, the only option is ZERO alcohol if carrying, NOT the Legal driving limit!

Did they also teach you that any sign is good enough for 30.06 notice and that churches are off limits with or without a sign? That seems to be the holy trinity for a certain type of instructor.

As I have pointed out before... I would hesitate to blame the instructor altogether...that IS what is taught in instructor class by the DPS. And yes, they did also teach that all gun signs should be obeyed. Were they correct? No. But as I tried to talk with many other students in the class during break, most I talked with came away agreeing all no gun signs should be obeyed...including a lawyer in the class which I thought should have been able to read the law better than that.

We were told that the .08 is for driving only and goes out the window when it comes to CHL. We were told one could not have a wine with meal and carry and that ANY discernable amount would have us in trouble. The problem here is, that although it is not what the penal code says, the law enforcement is virtually lockstep on this. I have spoken with LEO's of many varieties on this, and all have been in agreement. Correct? No. Get in trouble for it? yes. All the instructors fault? No. Reapeating what they have been taught by those who should know.

I believe what is taught is that you MAY get in trouble for passing a no guns sign; the beat the rap but not the ride scenario. Also, what I believe is taught is that officers discretion plays into both driving and CHL and that the general consensus is if you are caught carrying with alcohol on your breath that most officers will be more likely to say you are not capable of making a rational decision vs. driving with a little alcohol on your system. Right or wrong on the capabilities, the 'officer discretion' side leave it open to interpretation by the individual officer.

I will know this for sure by next weekend.

Always hate it when things are left open to individual interpretation and discretion. Get in trouble with one and another tells you it's fine. Let us know what you hear! Keep in mind, some was not just what was said in class, but the questions that came up during break which of course will vary.