OC v CHL

[C-dub]

Great replies everybody. The wife was out of town and I had to pick her up at DFW. While waiting for her, I read the posts here, good points, but I have a question. If you had a choice this session, and only one bill could get passed, which would you choose? Respectfully, I still view Campus Carry as a low priority mission. Many more people would be positively affected by a well crafted Open Carry bill. Campus Carry can wait. I do think the legal framework should be a CHL has the option, no CHL, no open carry. Ok, let me have it!

I remember this thread about OC vs. Campus Carry.
viewtopic.php?f=129&t=60117&hilit=suppo ... open+carry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this one, which had more choices.
viewtopic.php?f=125&t=59486&hilit=open+ ... ession+one" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought there was another one, but can't find it. Campus carry and OC are close in both pools. If licensed OC or even Constitutional Carry, which I don't think there has been a bill that has been proposed, is passed it will certainly give more people the ability to OC. However, I think it is obvious that relatively few actually will compared to the number of licensed people that could. Compared to those numbers, far more people will be affected by Campus Carry if passed because they will still be concealed. Licensed students, parents, and friends would be able to carry inside campus buildings. Parents would be able to carry inside building where many High School graduations are held.

[KC5AV]

If you had a choice this session, and only one bill could get passed, which would you choose?

I believe that campus carry is still the higher priority. I imagine there are more CHL holders that work for or attend college than there are CHL holders who would open carry on an on-going basis.

[C-dub]

If you had a choice this session, and only one bill could get passed, which would you choose?

I believe that campus carry is still the higher priority. I imagine there are more CHL holders that work for or attend college than there are CHL holders who would open carry on an on-going basis.

And he said it with fewer words and more to the point.

[gringo pistolero]

Parents would be able to carry inside building where many High School graduations are held.

I missed that. What campus carry bill includes high schools?

[CJD]

Parents would be able to carry inside building where many High School graduations are held.

I missed that. What campus carry bill includes high schools?

He meant that high school graduations occur on college campuses often.

[C-dub]

Parents would be able to carry inside building where many High School graduations are held.

I missed that. What campus carry bill includes high schools?

He meant that high school graduations occur on college campuses often.

That is correct. Two of my nephews' graduations were held at UNT. We have two more this year and then another in 2015 before my own daughter's in 2020.

[Jumping Frog]

Parents would be able to carry inside building where many High School graduations are held.

I missed that. What campus carry bill includes high schools?

He meant that high school graduations occur on college campuses often.

That is correct. Two of my nephews' graduations were held at UNT. We have two more this year and then another in 2015 before my own daughter's in 2020.

But attending a high school graduation would still be a school-sponsored event. One could not carry to the graduation itself, although campus carry would allow visiting the rest of the college campus while you are there.

[C-dub]

But attending a high school graduation would still be a school-sponsored event. One could not carry to the graduation itself, although campus carry would allow visiting the rest of the college campus while you are there.

I'm not so sure about that in this situation. Based on Charles' and Steve's opinions that if the school function is on property the school is not in control of that may not apply. OTOH, I am there attending the graduation versus just being there when a graduation just happens to be taking place. Even if it does pass this year it will be too late for this years graduation ceremonies and will hopefully be clarified before next year's.

[RottenApple]

But attending a high school graduation would still be a school-sponsored event. One could not carry to the graduation itself, although campus carry would allow visiting the rest of the college campus while you are there.

I'm not so sure about that in this situation. Based on Charles' and Steve's opinions that if the school function is on property the school is not in control of that may not apply. OTOH, I am there attending the graduation versus just being there when a graduation just happens to be taking place. Even if it does pass this year it will be too late for this years graduation ceremonies and will hopefully be clarified before next year's.

It's my understanding (which may be flawed) that if you are at a city owned zoo or museum and a school group shows up, you do not have to disarm, but if you are part of the school group you do. I would assume that to be the case at a high school graduation occurring at a college campus.

[Right2Carry]

But attending a high school graduation would still be a school-sponsored event. One could not carry to the graduation itself, although campus carry would allow visiting the rest of the college campus while you are there.

I'm not so sure about that in this situation. Based on Charles' and Steve's opinions that if the school function is on property the school is not in control of that may not apply. OTOH, I am there attending the graduation versus just being there when a graduation just happens to be taking place. Even if it does pass this year it will be too late for this years graduation ceremonies and will hopefully be clarified before next year's.

It's my understanding (which may be flawed) that if you are at a city owned zoo or museum and a school group shows up, you do not have to disarm, but if you are part of the school group you do. I would assume that to be the case at a high school graduation occurring at a college campus.

That is my understanding as well. It's no different than attending a school field trip as a chaperone or a parent and visiting a museum that is not posted or off limits. If you are part of the school field trip you may not carry even though the museum itself is not off limits or posted. I would think this would apply to any type of high school or below graduation regardless of where the ceremony is taking place.

[Jumping Frog]

The problem is, the way you are guys are interpreting it is a good commonsense way of interpreting legislative intent.

However, that is not what the language of the statute reads:

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an 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, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, nor a spectator . . . .

The statute, as written, could even conceivably apply to someone sitting in McDonalds eating their lunch when a school bus carrying kids on a field trip pulls up and all the kids pile out and come inside to eat lunch. Now, I know that is not what the legislature intended, but a hostile DA could still prosecute under the statute language as written.

[stash]

Am I remembering correctly that if campus carry was to pass the schools would probably have the option to allow campus carry or not?

[C-dub]

Am I remembering correctly that if campus carry was to pass the schools would probably have the option to allow campus carry or not?

They already have that option. If campus carry were passed they would not have the option. Public universities and colleges would not be able to prohibit a CHL from carrying in their buildings similar to other city or state owned facilities with certain exceptions.

[C-dub]

The problem is, the way you are guys are interpreting it is a good commonsense way of interpreting legislative intent.

However, that is not what the language of the statute reads:

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an 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, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, nor a spectator . . . .

The statute, as written, could even conceivably apply to someone sitting in McDonalds eating their lunch when a school bus carrying kids on a field trip pulls up and all the kids pile out and come inside to eat lunch. Now, I know that is not what the legislature intended, but a hostile DA could still prosecute under the statute language as written.

And there's the rub. Even Charles admits there is no court decisions that would shed more light onto this matter.

[srothstein]

The problem is, the way you are guys are interpreting it is a good commonsense way of interpreting legislative intent.

However, that is not what the language of the statute reads:

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an 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, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, nor a spectator . . . .

The statute, as written, could even conceivably apply to someone sitting in McDonalds eating their lunch when a school bus carrying kids on a field trip pulls up and all the kids pile out and come inside to eat lunch. Now, I know that is not what the legislature intended, but a hostile DA could still prosecute under the statute language as written.

Charles made a very good point on why that could not possibly be the legal meaning of the statute. Obviously, a school cannot give permission to do something on property they do not own or control. And they do not own the McDonald's. But carry would be legal if the school had regulations permitting it according to the law. So the law must only refer to grounds and buildings the school owns that are not part of the legal definition of premises. For example, a football stadium would be neither premises or just grounds.

This was what convinced me that he was correct and I was wrong in my original interpretation, which matched yours.