Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
"I'm a little alarmed because one of the students could have gotten a hold of that gun and I think she shouldn't have brought it onto the property," said Pamela Cavalier, a parent.

Does she have a problem with her kids ransacking other people's cars? Does the school have a problem with their students doing the same? Perhaps that needs addressed rather than worrying about what's in other people's cars. I'd be interested in knowing how this "tip" came about.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The reason I post these two articles from Houston television stations is sometime ago I stated it was illegal to carry firearms onto school campuses. At that time I was scolded and after 30 years of law enforcement in Texas didn't know of what I was speaking. I was angry and left the site for sometime until this event occurred. I was tired of dealing with people who have never been LEOs and never involved with charging anyone with any crime. Apparently, there are some police officers in the state, too, who are misinterpreting this these statutes or are side stepping the law because people carry CHLs. I wanted to address this issue on here for those members who are in Texas and believe they can visit their kid's school and leave there guns legally stored inside their vehicles. If the knowledge becomes available to your local law enforcement or ISD police departments, you MIGHT be arrested. Now, this is and issue I wish you to avoid at all cost because you will loose your licenses if charged and convicted, and because it is a felony lose your right to own or possess a firearm in the future under federal law.

I was told handguns could be carried in the parking lots and common outside walkways because of the preceived interpretation of the defintion of the term "premsies" under Texas Penal Code 46.035(f)(3), which states:

""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area." So, premises pertain only to the buildlings on a campus, right ?

I return to Penal Code Section 46.03 (Places Weapons Prohibited) in particular elements(a)(1) which stastes fully, "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, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;" I bring to your attentions the words "any grounds or building on which an activity..." The position of the DA's Office is taht the woman in these two article parked her car on the"grounds" of the school where she worked.

The charges are valid.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
"I'm a little alarmed because one of the students could have gotten a hold of that gun and I think she shouldn't have brought it onto the property," said Pamela Cavalier, a parent.

Does she have a problem with her kids ransacking other people's cars? Does the school have a problem with their students doing the same? Perhaps that needs addressed rather than worrying about what's in other people's cars. I'd be interested in knowing how this "tip" came about.

Well, Joe, I have been trying to read the copy of the charges against this woman, however, the District Clerk's Office hasn't posted the actual documents as of yet. It is a weekend.

If your suggesting the police had no probable cause to search the vehicle, then I would have to second guess a judge, who signed the charges. See, here in Harris County, there is a DA's Intake section where officers can call or visit and discuss their case with an assistant district attorney 24/7. The charges are written and the investigator must go before a judge/magistrate to have the magistate read and sign the charges before the charges become valid. What this means is, the judge has to agree to the probable cause statment when he signs the charges. I have seen charges refused by judges because the content of the probable cause was insufficient.

Again, for those who disagree with this, they should go to their state legislature and hav ethe law changed to suit them. It is what it is.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
It appears that either every instructor I have talked to (maybe 10 of them) were wrong or there has been a change. I was taught that we could carry on the property but we could not enter the building of a school.
i guess without a definition of 'activity' sponsored by school or educational institute they can say class or it could be band competition or basketball, baseball, football, soccer.

Edit: I think Sec 46.15 (nonapplicability) had CHL carriers listed at one point in time. I don't have oler versions, just this one, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf , so I am not able to compare but h and i have been repealed.

Edit2: then there is this: http://www.tacci2009.org/TLS - SB 321.html

Even though, concealed firearms are allowed to be kept in a motor vehicle located in school parking lots, employees of schools may be prohibited by their employer, the school, as a condition of continued employment, from having a concealed weapon stored in their vehicle.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,230 Posts
for those who disagree with this, they should go to their state legislature and hav ethe law changed to suit them.
For those who do support repealing schools as GFZs, contact your reps and ask them to support this:
Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

H.R.35 -- Safe Schools Act of 2013 (Introduced in House - IH)

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 35
To restore safety to America's schools.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2013

Mr. STOCKMAN (for himself and Mr. BROUN of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To restore safety to America's schools.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Safe Schools Act of 2013'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings- Congress finds--
(1) that the Supreme Court has found language nearly identical to the `Gun Free School Zones Act' to be unconstitutional;
(2) that the enactment of the `Gun Free School Zones Act' has been met with an almost uninterrupted series of horrific and tragic shootings at Columbine, Newtown and in other American schools;
(3) that the `Gun Free School Zones Act' has been a deadly failure. According to research by GeorgiaCarry.org, in the 22 years prior to enactment of the `Gun Free School Zones Act' there were two school shootings in which four or more people were intentionally murdered in a short period of time, and in the 22 years after the enactment of the `Gun Free School Zones Act' there have been 10 such school shootings;
(4) that American schools had not been plagued with this succession of horrific shootings prior to the enactment of the `Gun Free School Zones Act';
(5) that horrific massacres on school campuses in Pearl, Mississippi, and southwestern Virginia, were averted by armed staff and students;
(6) that none of the murderers in any of these horrific school shootings were deterred by the fact that, in addition to murder, gun possession was also illegal in those locations; and
(7) that the reason that the `Gun Free School Zones Act' has made American schools unsafe is that shooters now know that they can victimize American school campuses with no fear that victims will be armed.
(b) Purpose- It is the purpose of this Act to restore safety to America's schools by allowing staff, teachers, and administrators to defend the children and themselves.
SEC. 3. SAFE SCHOOLS.
Subsection (q) of section 922 of Title 18, United States Code, is repealed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Well, Joe, I have been trying to read the copy of the charges against this woman, however, the District Clerk's Office hasn't posted the actual documents as of yet. It is a weekend.

If your suggesting...
I'm not suggesting anything. I'd be interested in knowing how the "tip" came about.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
It appears that either every instructor I have talked to (maybe 10 of them) were wrong or there has been a change. I was taught that we could carry on the property but we could not enter the building of a school.
i guess without a definition of 'activity' sponsored by school or educational institute they can say class or it could be band competition or basketball, baseball, football, soccer.

Edit: I think Sec 46.15 (nonapplicability) had CHL carriers listed at one point in time. I don't have oler versions, just this one, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/forms/chl-16.pdf , so I am not able to compare but h and i have been repealed.

Edit2: then there is this: Texas Law Shield on SB 321

If it were a condition of continued employment, it would be a violation of school policy not criminal law, and she could be fired. This woman is charged with a 3rd degree felony under Section 46.03--Places Weapons Prohibited.

I have the 2009 Penal Code, the one in effect when I retired, and there is no mention in 46.15 about CHL holders.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I return to Penal Code Section 46.03 (Places Weapons Prohibited) in particular elements(a)(1) which stastes fully, "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, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;" I bring to your attentions the words "any grounds or building on which an activity..." The position of the DA's Office is taht the woman in these two article parked her car on the"grounds" of the school where she worked.

The charges are valid.
IF she was a CHL holder and the policy manual (or employment documents) DOES NOT have 30.06 required language then she would be OK since for CHLs premises is defined as:

PC 46.035 (3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. (From page 39 of the DPS Texas Concealed Handgun laws 2011-2012)


If she DOES NOT have a CHL she is is in deep doodoo. I don't see any mention in any of the
stores about a CHL.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
IF she was a CHL holder and the policy manual (or employment documents) DOES NOT have 30.06 required language then she would be OK since for CHLs premises is defined as:

PC 46.035 (3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area. (From page 39 of the DPS Texas Concealed Handgun laws 2011-2012)


If she DOES NOT have a CHL she is is in deep doodoo. I don't see any mention in any of the
stores about a CHL.


One does not need a CHL to carry a handgun in their vehicle. Gun free zones applies to everyone, CHL or not...If you read the Penal Code Section 46.03 you'll note the word grounds used. The term "premises" merely describes buildings and I believe most interpret 46.03(a)(1). Do you see the word grounds...can't have it both way...premsies merely means the buildings but look at the word "grounds". The woman is charged with a 3rd degree felony for having the firearm.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
11,760 Posts
The reason I post these two articles from Houston television stations is sometime ago I stated it was illegal to carry firearms onto school campuses. At that time I was scolded and after 30 years of law enforcement in Texas didn't know of what I was speaking. I was angry and left the site for sometime until this event occurred. I was tired of dealing with people who have never been LEOs and never involved with charging anyone with any crime. Apparently, there are some police officers in the state, too, who are misinterpreting this these statutes or are side stepping the law because people carry CHLs. I wanted to address this issue on here for those members who are in Texas and believe they can visit their kid's school and leave there guns legally stored inside their vehicles. If the knowledge becomes available to your local law enforcement or ISD police departments, you MIGHT be arrested. Now, this is and issue I wish you to avoid at all cost because you will loose your licenses if charged and convicted, and because it is a felony lose your right to own or possess a firearm in the future under federal law.

I was told handguns could be carried in the parking lots and common outside walkways because of the preceived interpretation of the defintion of the term "premsies" under Texas Penal Code 46.035(f)(3), which states:

""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area." So, premises pertain only to the buildlings on a campus, right ?

I return to Penal Code Section 46.03 (Places Weapons Prohibited) in particular elements(a)(1) which stastes fully, "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, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;" I bring to your attentions the words "any grounds or building on which an activity..." The position of the DA's Office is taht the woman in these two article parked her car on the"grounds" of the school where she worked.

The charges are valid.
I was taught back in the 1990s, when I first got my CHL, that schools were off limits as far as CC was concerned. As far as I'm concerned, a school is everywhere within the chain link fence surrounding the property. Our instructor even warned us that private property that was hosting a school function could be classified as "School property". Whether it would be or not would be up to an over reaching Deputy or LEO, that was having a bad day. It's unfortunate that she didn't have the pistol covered or told/bragged about having it. By the way, in Texas you don't need a CHL to carry a firearm in your car. The law was changed to reflect that your car is now legally considered your domicile. The rules about concealment and prohibitions about school property still apply. You'd get busted with a Winchester in a rifle rack, just as fast as a pistol on the seat, at a school.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
CJS3,

The laws concerning carrying a firearm in one's vehicle happened long before what I believe you're referring to as the "Castle Doctrine". Castle Doctrine went into effect in Texas in September 2007. Carrying
handgun in a vehicle came about as a slow progression of change in the law over many years and case law. I remember a case where a judge dismissed a gun case in court because the man was carrying a large sum of money from his business. This was the late '70s. Over the three decades prior to the "Castle Doctrine" going into effect, another judge somewhere in the Dallas area, I believe, allowed a driver, who was "traveling" from one county to another to carry a handgun (shoulder weapons have always been legal). Now, of course, we can carry handguns in the car without a CHL.

For the Texas members, here is a website for the Texas Castle Doctrine if you've never read it...it is a combination of the Penal Code and the Civil Remedies Code, which merely states if a homeowneer kills or injures an intruder in his "habitation" he cannot be sued by the survivor thug if he lives or anyone else, who feels harmed, if he dies. Most states have such Castle Doctrines, and members outside of Texas will
need to research their own states.

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html
 

· Registered
Joined
·
16,335 Posts
The Felony charge cannot stand against the woman as the vehicle is part of her domicile. It may be on school grounds, but it is not property of the school. Sure, the school can call for immediate dismissal, however the sovereign citizen cannot be convicted of this class 3 felony for having the firearm inside of her vehicle. Since the entryway of the school grounds didn't have the proper prohibition signage posted, it restricts the prohibition to the building only if it's posted on those doors. If the woman has a decent lawyer, she won't have to work another day in her life.
This now also brings into focus the judge granting a search warrant. I can list case after case after case of where LEOs have obtained search warrants solely based on lies, false allegations and alleged criminal activities. I can show you handfuls of warrants that were served with complete disregard for the limited scope of the warrant. I think because of these examples, we can pretty much rule out that the warrant process is anywhere near close to legitimate.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,072 Posts
I have no idea how this is going to turn out but the situation sucks! If you have this much ambiguity and disagreement about what the law is seems to me some major clarifications need to be made.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,005 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
The Felony charge cannot stand against the woman as the vehicle is part of her domicile. It may be on school grounds, but it is not property of the school. Sure, the school can call for immediate dismissal, however the sovereign citizen cannot be convicted of this class 3 felony for having the firearm inside of her vehicle. Since the entryway of the school grounds didn't have the proper prohibition signage posted, it restricts the prohibition to the building only if it's posted on those doors. If the woman has a decent lawyer, she won't have to work another day in her life.
This now also brings into focus the judge granting a search warrant. I can list case after case after case of where LEOs have obtained search warrants solely based on lies, false allegations and alleged criminal activities. I can show you handfuls of warrants that were served with complete disregard for the limited scope of the warrant. I think because of these examples, we can pretty much rule out that the warrant process is anywhere near close to legitimate.
On school grounds she cannot...that's my contention regardless of what all the CHL classes say...The statute says "premises" and "grounds". This has noting to do with CHL laws anyway. ABD, yes, in Texas and elsewhere probbly, guns can legally be carried in the car. I believe the charge may stand. We'll just have to wait and see...I see no ambiguityin this issue.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
I agree at this point it doesn't have to do with a CHL. It has to do with the word GROUNDS being listed in the code. That changes everything. There is no definition of grounds so depending on the judge it could be something that gets voided due to vagueness.

But let's say the word grounds wasn't there and she has a chl. Even if the employee handbook says she can not leave her firearm in the car, the law Perry signed in, I believe, 2011 allows her to carry by overruling the the handbook. Also, I don't think the 30.06 sign covers parking lots anyway- maybe someone knows for sure.

as far as her never working again, I seriously doubt that will happen. And do we want it to? Those are my tax dollars!
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
42,841 Posts
If you read PC46.03 carefully, grounds are mentioned as having a school activity being conducted there at the time. What activity was being conducted in that parking lot?

Just a little more food for thought.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
The "grounds" is for UIL sanctioned activities, specifically games that are held with controlled access. The Parking Lot bill that was referred to specifically exempted schools - so the people responsible for your children's safety and for teaching your children to be good citizens lack the smell protections afforded their parents.


Parking lots are only legal for CHL, like taking a gun into a liquor store. If she has a lisence, charges will be dropped. My bêtise she doesn't, hence the charges. For the officers, I might suggest you check with the AGs office and DA before you arrest or it could get ugly.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top