Show Me Texas Law That Says I Cannot Carry Rifle In <51% Place

[Dash Riprock]

I guess we got lucky...

Not really, I actually find it kind of silly. I'd have rather they let gunbusters signs stay but not have the force of law.

In other words, as I understand it, if you carry past a 30.06/30.07 sign, you're trespassing. No further notice is required and you are in violation subject to criminal penalties (I think used to be Class A misdemeanor but was changed to a Class C a session or two ago). I'd have rather gunbuster signs but you can only be charged with trespassing if you're asked to leave and refuse.

But that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[Renegade]

Not really, I actually find it kind of silly. I'd have rather they let gunbusters signs stay but not have the force of law.

That option was not on table due to previous case law.

 

[kenboyles72]

Please cite law relevant law for 1, 2, 8. The rest are easily found in 46.03 (a) 1-6.

While 1 & 2 is not Texas penal code, it is TABC penal code. But is a little tricky. Section 11.61(e) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code states that it is illegal for a business to allow anyone armed to enter the premises, this doesn't necessarily prevent one from doing so. https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/home/press_releases/2013/20130906.asp

As for #8, it is also found in 46.03 (6:b3)? don't know how the number works, so here is a quote.

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, location-restricted 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, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless:

(A) pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; or

(B) the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section applies, on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education, on any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of the institution;

(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;

(4) on the premises of a racetrack;

(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or

(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person received notice that:

(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed under this subsection was prohibited; or

(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within 1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a location-restricted knife:

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the person is a participant in the event and a location-restricted knife is used in the event;

(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;

 

[CdnPlinkr]

1. The '51% Rule' is only applicable to premises licensed for on-site consumption - i.e. bars, etc.
2. Texas State Constitution:
Sec. 23.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but
the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

Eli

Why is there always a 'but'?
I'm learning with every thread I read here, but this is going to nag at me if I don't ask.

I don't wish to go down some off topic rabbit hole, but if you'll indulge momentarily an outlander who is not familiar with your laws, I noticed an apparent contradiction in the quoted Section, which to me seems fundamental, but everyone is just letting it slide, while debating the finer points of legislation derived under the authority of said passage.

Is there some legal usage I'm missing, that differentiates between 'bearing' and 'wearing'?

To the reasonable layman these terms would seem interchangeable, so it follows that everything after the 'but' violates the 'shall not be infringed' principle of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm thinking maybe what I'm missing is, the legal definitions of these words in this case don't follow their commonly understood meanings.

Is it simply a case of an infringement that is tolerated in return for the appearance of safety? Goodness knows there are enough compromises like that, given the realities of politics.

Over to you, good people of Texas. Set me straight. Thanks in advance.

 

[45tex]

In reference to the OP. If the dipsh*t in Missouri were a resident of Texas and in Texas and at a wallyworld and had a rifle that he carried into wallyworld. He would not be in violation of a Texas law until he failed to leave after being told by a wallyworlder. If there were a store full of snowflakes that screamed and ran around being offended and stuff. Maybe he might be charged with disorderly conduct which like trespassing is a catch all law.
But none of this matters because the idiot was in Missouri which is not in Texas.

 

[jordanmills]

While 1 & 2 is not Texas penal code, it is TABC penal code. But is a little tricky. Section 11.61(e) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code states that it is illegal for a business to allow anyone armed to enter the premises, this doesn't necessarily prevent one from doing so. https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/home/press_releases/2013/20130906.asp

As for #8, it is also found in 46.03 (6:b3)? don't know how the number works, so here is a quote.

It's not "TABC penal code". It's the alcoholic beverage code. I'm pretty sure they don't have the authority to make laws that get people locked up.

And it only says that they have to post that sign and that they can get their permit revoked for letting someone carry firearms without an ltc, etc. The part about it being unlawful is a complete fabrication.

 

[jordanmills]

Not really, I actually find it kind of silly. I'd have rather they let gunbusters signs stay but not have the force of law.

In other words, as I understand it, if you carry past a 30.06/30.07 sign, you're trespassing. No further notice is required and you are in violation subject to criminal penalties (I think used to be Class A misdemeanor but was changed to a Class C a session or two ago). I'd have rather gunbuster signs but you can only be charged with trespassing if you're asked to leave and refuse.

But that's a topic for a different thread.

Well there are a few more conditions. Most places i see with signs don't meet the requirements so they have no legal force. You can carry right past them and the law can't do a thing about it until they give you notice by one of the other methods listed in 06/07.

 

[Bithabus]

While 1 & 2 is not Texas penal code, it is TABC penal code. But is a little tricky. Section 11.61(e) of the Alcoholic Beverage Code states that it is illegal for a business to allow anyone armed to enter the premises, this doesn't necessarily prevent one from doing so. https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/home/press_releases/2013/20130906.asp

You are incorrect. The TABC code you cite does forbid TABC permittees from allowing persons to enter an establishment with a firearm (with some exceptions), but this does not mean entering the premises armed is ulawful. In other words, if you enter a bar or liquor store with a rifle you are not breaking any law however the owner or manager is supposed to ask you to leave. If they don't ask you to leave you still aren't breaking any law but the business could have its TABC permit suspended or revoked.

 

[Bithabus]

As for #8, it is also found in 46.03 (6:b3)? don't know how the number works, so here is a quote.

Nope, you are also wrong about that. You might be thinking of the 1000 feet gun free zone around the Walls unit on execution days. Have you ever actually read chapter 46?

 

[Eli]

1. The '51% Rule' is only applicable to premises licensed for on-site consumption - i.e. bars, etc.
2. Texas State Constitution:

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

Eli

I'll add that, 20 years ago, when I went through cop school, we were told that it wasn't actually against he law to carry a rifle or shotgun in most places where it was thought illegal to do so. I don't remember specifics - it's been 20 years, and I never worked as a cop - but I recall grocery stores being mentioned as legal to carry into. Of course, we also discussed Disturbing the Peace as doing so would likely cause panic...

Eli

 

[Dash Riprock]

Why is there always a 'but'?
I'm learning with every thread I read here, but this is going to nag at me if I don't ask.

I don't wish to go down some off topic rabbit hole, but if you'll indulge momentarily an outlander who is not familiar with your laws, I noticed an apparent contradiction in the quoted Section, which to me seems fundamental, but everyone is just letting it slide, while debating the finer points of legislation derived under the authority of said passage.

Is there some legal usage I'm missing, that differentiates between 'bearing' and 'wearing'?

To the reasonable layman these terms would seem interchangeable, so it follows that everything after the 'but' violates the 'shall not be infringed' principle of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

I'm thinking maybe what I'm missing is, the legal definitions of these words in this case don't follow their commonly understood meanings.

Is it simply a case of an infringement that is tolerated in return for the appearance of safety? Goodness knows there are enough compromises like that, given the realities of politics.

Over to you, good people of Texas. Set me straight. Thanks in advance.

I can't speak to the "bearing" vs "wearing" thing. I assume it's a distinction without a difference, but I don't know. I do know that the "but" was the justification for restricting handgun carry, among other things, for more than a century.

Your post brings up something I've long pondered and have never been able to find a good answer for, namely what exactly DOES the BOR limit? Does it only limit the federal government's ability to infringe or establish a religion or whatever, or is it implied that state governments can't do those things either? What exactly was the 14th Amendment intended to do, and why/how has it been used to justify so many seemingly unrelated expansions of the federal government's power?

My armchair googling seems to suggest that originally, the BOR was only intended to limit the federal government's power and states were more or less free to do what they want. Then the 14th superceded that with respect to slavery by forcing states to recognize citizenship of freed slaves and protect them equally, but then that was, rightly or wrongly, expanded into many other areas. I don't know.

Bottom line - it seems like at the end of the day, the 2A is constantly treated as the red-headed stepchild of amendments. Courts tolerate almost no restrictions on speech or the press, but allow a wide array of state and federal restrictions on firearms. I don't understand how they rationalize that.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

How about, "depends on what the definition of is, is"...

 

[Renegade]

Your post brings up something I've long pondered and have never been able to find a good answer for, namely what exactly DOES the BOR limit? Does it only limit the federal government's ability to infringe or establish a religion or whatever, or is it implied that state governments can't do those things either?

BOR was never meant to limit anything. Just recognize existing rights.

Keep in mind SCOTUS was NEVER authorized to determine if laws are constitutional or not, or what is protected under the BOR.

 

[TheDan]

46.03 says you cannot bring a firearm into any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages that is 51%.

Sweet, so AOWs are good to go?

 

[Dash Riprock]

BOR was never meant to limit anything. Just recognize existing rights.

Yes, but it says things like "Congress shall make no law..." which clearly implies a limitation on the government's power over those rights.

Seems like it does both - it recognizes certain inalienable rights AND restricts government from infringing upon them.

 

[Jimmy "frognought"]

Ya think?

who said walmart is a gun free zone ? i carry in walmart

 

[Jimmy "frognought"]

Folks are asking is it a gun free zone.

There were no 30.06 or 30.07 signs - so no vs that route.

46.02 says you cannot bring a handgun into any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages. He did not do this.

46.03 says you cannot bring a firearm into any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages that is 51%. He did not do this.

But so far no luck find a law that bans firearms (which would be include rifles) from a non 51% place.

i thought that 51% law was the consumption of alcohol, like a bar, you can go into a beer store to buy beer.

 

[easy rider]

i thought that 51% law was the consumption of alcohol, like a bar, you can go into a beer store to buy beer.

True.

 

[Mr.candrews]

I'm just trying to correlate the title of this thread to Walmart.

Same here

 

[Bithabus]

Same here

Some people were claiming that walmart is a gun free zone since they sell beer and wine. But, that is only internet nonsense.