If a parking lot is posted, can a non-employee leave their gun locked in the car? I have tried to google an answer, but most of the articles address employees or are a couple years old.
30.06 at the entrance to a parking lot
11,914 Views |
52 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by Hoss
Snow Monkey Ambassador
Joined:
Oct 22, 2001
Posts:
21,640
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes.
30.06 would be next to impossible to enforce in a parking lot. Additionally, castle doctrine would supersede the sign in your own property. No one can stop you from carrying in your own car, with a few exceptions (federal buildings, plants, refineries, certain employers, etc.)... once you step out of your car is when they can.gig em 02 said:
If a parking lot is posted, can a non-employee leave their gun locked in the car? I have tried to google an answer, but most of the articles address employees or are a couple years old.
Yes, you can carry in your car.
Most likely some lawyers somewhere or some sign company selling packages because of how much misinformation is out there about them.
I think the real question, is what is the likelihood of getting caught? And if you are caught, what's the downside? For instance, if you're there as a vendor or sales guy, if they do catch you, will it hurt your ability to come on the property in the future?
If it's the parking lot of the local mall, and they won't let you come back, count your blessings.
If it's the parking lot of the local mall, and they won't let you come back, count your blessings.
Here's a potentially stupid question, can dogs detect firearms inside of a car?
If they trained dogs to sniff our gunpowder, i would start seeding random cars to eff with whatever moron came up with that idea. That, and any dog that triggers on gunpowder would best be served to sit down before they cross the border in to texas.
A lot of police dogs are trained for that actually. My high school had the police bring dogs that could detect drugs & firearms.
I got in trouble a few times because I'd keep my rifles and/or shotguns in the truck on Fridays before going hunting & they'd sniff it out. Luckily the principal was a hunter too.
I got in trouble a few times because I'd keep my rifles and/or shotguns in the truck on Fridays before going hunting & they'd sniff it out. Luckily the principal was a hunter too.
Dogs can be trained to sniff gunpowder. A couple times a year they bring dogs to sniff the parking lot at work (a chemical plant).
I got busted, the weekend before I took my kids shooting, one of them dropped the case of 223. Apparently 9 rounds that rolled under the backseat and we missed cleaning is enough to alert the dog.
I got busted, the weekend before I took my kids shooting, one of them dropped the case of 223. Apparently 9 rounds that rolled under the backseat and we missed cleaning is enough to alert the dog.
My truck got alerted on every time the dog came to school and patrolled the parking lot. Never found what they kept alerting on. Probably had some 22 ammo rolling around in there somewhere.
agrams
Joined:
Aug 8, 2006
Posts:
4,558
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting, I never knew they had them trained for gunpowder. I just envision some drug sniffing dog losing his mind going through a parking lot in east texas because he is never more than a few feet from a gun or some ammo.
apparently I can't edit a blank post... whatever.
apparently I can't edit a blank post... whatever.
You're carrying in your vehicle under the authority of the Motorists Protection Act. 30.06 doesn't apply when carrying under MPA. So you're legal.gig em 02 said:
If a parking lot is posted, can a non-employee leave their gun locked in the car? I have tried to google an answer, but most of the articles address employees or are a couple years old.
If you get out of the vehicle with your gun "on or about your person", then 30.06 does apply and you could be cited.
As Buck said, there are some facilities where MPA doesn't apply.
I've always been under the impression that 30.06 doesn't apply to parking lots or parking garages anyway. As I understand it, 30.06 can only be enforced on "premises" and premises is defined as buildings. That's why you can walk around an elementary school all day long with your holstered weapon, so long as you don't go in a building. I have and will continue to ignore 30.06 signs posted on parking lots.
I don't think that's the case on federal property. I don't believe you can CC anywhere on federal property, including the post office parking lot. Which is why I use UPS. Our local fed ex is 30,06. Jokers. The experts on this subject might want to weigh in and confirm.
Fishin Texas Aggie 05
Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
Posts:
24,612
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Next question and it deserves its own thread probably
I park in a public parking lot that is not marked anyway. Per my boss it's against the company handbook to carry a firearm to work up to and including in your vehicle
Is this enforceable?
I park in a public parking lot that is not marked anyway. Per my boss it's against the company handbook to carry a firearm to work up to and including in your vehicle
Is this enforceable?
Yes & no.
They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.
They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.
No mention of premises in 30.06. 30.06 only says "property". Other laws relating to carry of weapons does mention premises. If 30.06 is posted on a building, the parking lot is clear. If 30.06 is posted on the entry to the parking lot, then it is off limits for carry under authority of an LTCHoss said:
I've always been under the impression that 30.06 doesn't apply to parking lots or parking garages anyway. As I understand it, 30.06 can only be enforced on "premises" and premises is defined as buildings. That's why you can walk around an elementary school all day long with your holstered weapon, so long as you don't go in a building. I have and will continue to ignore 30.06 signs posted on parking lots.
Quote:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
EMY92 said:
Yes & no.
They can't search your vehicle, but they can fire you if they find out.
Probably not in Texas.
Under SB 321, most public and private employers in Texas may not prohibit employees, who hold a license to carry a handgun, from transporting or storing a lawfully possessed firearm in the employee's locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage or other area provided by the employer.
Unless it's an employer exempt under SB321, they can't enforce that sign or fire you, but I don't think it's been tested in court yet.
What's the rules for keeping a rifle or handgun in your vehicle while on private property (i.e. ranch while working at a rig site)? I haven't seen any types of signage or postings or been told by any gate guards (licensed security guards) of any no gun polices.
The only thing in our code of conduct is
"company does not allow weapons on our property (I'm assuming company office, etc) or in our vehicles (I'm assuming their company vehicles) or while on job unless an individual has been specifically permitted to, in writing, by the CEO".
Talk about vague. Their are basic no gun (gun inside a red circle with diagonal stripe) stickers on our trailer doors.
The tool pusher at our rig has 30.06/30.07 signs on his trailer (office door, but not his "living area" door).
Just wondering, not that I would potentially bring my stuff out here.
The only thing in our code of conduct is
"company does not allow weapons on our property (I'm assuming company office, etc) or in our vehicles (I'm assuming their company vehicles) or while on job unless an individual has been specifically permitted to, in writing, by the CEO".
Talk about vague. Their are basic no gun (gun inside a red circle with diagonal stripe) stickers on our trailer doors.
The tool pusher at our rig has 30.06/30.07 signs on his trailer (office door, but not his "living area" door).
Just wondering, not that I would potentially bring my stuff out here.
Some of my reading suggests that a lot of landowners put "no gun" provisions in their oil leases. So if you bring a weapon onto that particular farm/ranch while at a well site, you could jeopardize the lease, which would jeopardize your job.
As I said earlier, you have to weigh the costs. Basically:
1) Are you likely to get caught
2) What is it going to cost you if caught (cops, job, banning from site)?
As I said earlier, you have to weigh the costs. Basically:
1) Are you likely to get caught
2) What is it going to cost you if caught (cops, job, banning from site)?
If there are "no gun" provisions in the leases, wouldn't there need to at least be some sort of signage or posting at the entrance? There is no way for everyone to know such policy, because 99% of the people driving on the ranches/leases has access or read the lease agreement.
Snow Monkey Ambassador
Joined:
Oct 22, 2001
Posts:
21,640
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No. The terms of a lease are negotiable by the lessee and the lessor, and are not related to concealed carry laws. Unless the lease specifies some signage as necessary, it isn't (we're talking about private property, not open to the general public, here). Having said that, only the parties to the lease (and their agents, etc.) are bound by its terms, so unless you work directly or indirectly for one of them (or under the control of one of them) you can't violate the lease. Whether you, as an individual, know what's in the agreement or not is superfluous.aggie4231 said:
If there are "no gun" provisions in the leases, wouldn't there need to at least be some sort of signage or posting at the entrance? There is no way for everyone to know such policy, because 99% of the people driving on the ranches/leases has access or read the lease agreement.
It is the responsibility of the operator to make sure anyone coming onto the property knows the rules.
As the previous two guys stated, it doesn't matter. We're not talking the legality of carry. We're talking about someone allowing you access to his property. He has a right to control that access. And as long as the boss or contract knows the provisions, that should be the end of it, no signs required.
And if the landowner or the boss catch you violating the terms, excrement will hit the rotating air movement device.
On a side note, my guess is that 90% of land owners are pro-gun, and generally don't mind you carrying. But 110% of them have either experiences or have heard stories from their neighbor's uncle's brother's cousin about bad behavior by someone on an oil lease. Poaching, target shooting and leaving trash, shooting up farm equipment, shooting the prize bull. Heck, it never has to happen. The landowner just has to think it has happened somewhere, sometime, and think it could happen on his place.
It's much easier to ban something than to police every guy with access to the lease or trust to human nature.
And if the landowner or the boss catch you violating the terms, excrement will hit the rotating air movement device.
On a side note, my guess is that 90% of land owners are pro-gun, and generally don't mind you carrying. But 110% of them have either experiences or have heard stories from their neighbor's uncle's brother's cousin about bad behavior by someone on an oil lease. Poaching, target shooting and leaving trash, shooting up farm equipment, shooting the prize bull. Heck, it never has to happen. The landowner just has to think it has happened somewhere, sometime, and think it could happen on his place.
It's much easier to ban something than to police every guy with access to the lease or trust to human nature.
ThisAggieGunslinger said:
It is the responsibility of the operator to make sure anyone coming onto the property knows the rules.
basically the way the law reads, the language in the lease exempts the company from Title 2. Subtitle B. 52.061:
because in the exemptions you have:Quote:
RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.
So the language in the lease doesn't specifically stop the employee from bringing a firearm on property, but it allows a company to put a policy in place prohibiting firearms even in private vehicles, and fire employees for violations without being in breach of 52.061Quote:
Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(2) apply to:
(E) property owned or controlled by a person, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.035txyaloo said:No mention of premises in 30.06. 30.06 only says "property". Other laws relating to carry of weapons does mention premises. If 30.06 is posted on a building, the parking lot is clear. If 30.06 is posted on the entry to the parking lot, then it is off limits for carry under authority of an LTCHoss said:
I've always been under the impression that 30.06 doesn't apply to parking lots or parking garages anyway. As I understand it, 30.06 can only be enforced on "premises" and premises is defined as buildings. That's why you can walk around an elementary school all day long with your holstered weapon, so long as you don't go in a building. I have and will continue to ignore 30.06 signs posted on parking lots.Quote:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Here's the line from the Penal Code that some of us are referencing:
Quote:
(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.
You're mixing two different sections of the penal code with two different legal definitions...tx1c said:http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.035txyaloo said:No mention of premises in 30.06. 30.06 only says "property". Other laws relating to carry of weapons does mention premises. If 30.06 is posted on a building, the parking lot is clear. If 30.06 is posted on the entry to the parking lot, then it is off limits for carry under authority of an LTCHoss said:
I've always been under the impression that 30.06 doesn't apply to parking lots or parking garages anyway. As I understand it, 30.06 can only be enforced on "premises" and premises is defined as buildings. That's why you can walk around an elementary school all day long with your holstered weapon, so long as you don't go in a building. I have and will continue to ignore 30.06 signs posted on parking lots.Quote:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Here's the line from the Penal Code that some of us are referencing:Quote:
(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.
46.035 is part of Chapter 46 (Weapons) of the penal code. 30.06 is part of Chapter 30 (Burglary and Criminal Trespass). Chapter 46 typically uses the definition of "premises". Chapter 30 uses "property" which isn't defined. I believe Texas has case law that says "property" includes the parking lot if signage is posted at the entry to the lot.
46.035 has nothing to do with 30.06 other than 30.06 is used to provide effective notice at colleges/universities, polling places, and other statutorily off limits locations. If you violate a 30.06 sign at any of the statutorily off limits locations, you're also in violation of 46.035.
30.06 uses the definition of "entry" from 30.05 (b) which is the Criminal Trespass statute and the definition of "license holder" from 46.035 (f). (f) is also where "premises" is defined, but 30.06 doesn't reference that.
The penal code is strange with all of its circular references
Just the same, I'm pretty sure I'll continue ignoring 30.06 signs in parking lots. I really don't even look for them on buildings anymore, to be honest. I've pretty much decided I'm gonna carry where I'm gonna carry and not worry too much about it. There are exceptions, of course, but if it's your typical local business I'm usually either gonna ignore their sign or take my business elsewhere. I figure no one is going to know unless I need it, and if I need it then things have gotten so bad that 30.06 laws just aren't important anymore.
Edit: NM, finally figured out the OP was specifically asking about non-employees. I'll stop trying to bring up 52.061.
Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.Hoss said:
Just the same, I'm pretty sure I'll continue ignoring 30.06 signs in parking lots. I really don't even look for them on buildings anymore, to be honest. I've pretty much decided I'm gonna carry where I'm gonna carry and not worry too much about it. There are exceptions, of course, but if it's your typical local business I'm usually either gonna ignore their sign or take my business elsewhere. I figure no one is going to know unless I need it, and if I need it then things have gotten so bad that 30.06 laws just aren't important anymore.
1) Walking past a 30.06 is not a violation of a misdemeanor traffic ordinance (first strike)
2) If a person walks past a valid 30.06, they have no right to be on that property thus has a duty to retreat. "Castle doctrine" doesn't apply.
I'm not aware of any case law backing this up since the violation for walking past a 30.06 just changed with the last Legislative session. Prior to that, I think most people were less likely to walk past a sign and catch a Class A with loss of license than now. One thing to note for people that may not realize, if you walk past a 30.06 on any statutorily off limits location like a church, hospital, etc, the violation is a Class A misdemeanor, not a Class C.
Quote:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
I rarely post to disagree w another OB'er, just not my style. But I just don't understand this mentality. At best it's internet tough-guy posting and at worst it is conscious defiance of the law.
We are allegedly a civil society in which we collectively live under established laws to pursue our individual free will. If you don't like the law then get involved and work to change the law. But until that law changes....it's the law and we should comply to preserve the civil society.
We were founded on individual rights and private property rights, yet walking past 30.06 signs at private businesses deprives the business owner of their rights as well. As you noted in your post, take your business elsewhere don't walk right past them while carrying.
Lastly, choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore is nothing more than selective nullification, which is currently a major threat to our society (see sanctuary cities as a more egregious example - not comparing your post and leftism/statism strategies just providing an example).
I have no interest in getting into a back and forth and I won't post again, just wanted to bring up another perspective in the hopes that you might consider moving toward an alternate viewpoint.
We are allegedly a civil society in which we collectively live under established laws to pursue our individual free will. If you don't like the law then get involved and work to change the law. But until that law changes....it's the law and we should comply to preserve the civil society.
We were founded on individual rights and private property rights, yet walking past 30.06 signs at private businesses deprives the business owner of their rights as well. As you noted in your post, take your business elsewhere don't walk right past them while carrying.
Lastly, choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore is nothing more than selective nullification, which is currently a major threat to our society (see sanctuary cities as a more egregious example - not comparing your post and leftism/statism strategies just providing an example).
I have no interest in getting into a back and forth and I won't post again, just wanted to bring up another perspective in the hopes that you might consider moving toward an alternate viewpoint.
I hear ya, but I'd rather be in for a longer and more expensive court case than be dead. I don't anticipate it ever being an issue. It's pretty rare for me to see 30.06 signs.
Also, I don't understand why people still think churches and hospitals are off limits. That changed a long time ago. Are you saying they're treated differently if posted than other places that are posted?
Also, I don't understand why people still think churches and hospitals are off limits. That changed a long time ago. Are you saying they're treated differently if posted than other places that are posted?
dr_boogs said:
At best it's internet tough-guy posting and at worst it is conscious defiance of the law.
Meh, it's really neither. I'm no internet tough guy and I'm generally a law abiding citizen, but like pretty much everyone else there are some laws I don't follow as closely as others. Some people speed. Some people drink and drive. Some people steal. Some people lie on their tax returns. Some people don't use a turn signal or wear seat belts. I ignore 30.06 signs. And that's not even entirely true. The truth is I rarely see them and have turned around and walked away from a lot more than I've walked past. Just depends on the situation. Parking lots though...I'll pretty much always ignore those. I've seen apartment complexes with 30.06 signs posted st the gate entrances. Parking lot 30.06 signs are just ridiculous.
Generally speaking I wholeheartedly agree with the point your making, but let's be honest...all of us have SOME little law that we choose to break, do we not? Okay...maybe not all, but I'd say most of us do.
How will this make the case longer and more expensive? The prosecution's burden doesn't change and even an incompetent defense attorney will put forth evidence that your belief was reasonable whether this applies or not.txyaloo said:
Just remember, if you walk past a 30.06 sign, you lose the presumption of "reasonableness" in the penal code. I'm not saying I disagree with walking past most 30.06 signs, but you're in for a longer/more expensive court case if you use your weapon while trespassing. Key points in bold below.
dr_boogs said:
I rarely post to disagree w another OB'er, just not my style. But I just don't understand this mentality. At best it's internet tough-guy posting and at worst it is conscious defiance of the law.
We are allegedly a civil society in which we collectively live under established laws to pursue our individual free will. If you don't like the law then get involved and work to change the law. But until that law changes....it's the law and we should comply to preserve the civil society.
We were founded on individual rights and private property rights, yet walking past 30.06 signs at private businesses deprives the business owner of their rights as well. As you noted in your post, take your business elsewhere don't walk right past them while carrying.
Lastly, choosing which laws to follow and which laws to ignore is nothing more than selective nullification, which is currently a major threat to our society (see sanctuary cities as a more egregious example - not comparing your post and leftism/statism strategies just providing an example).
I have no interest in getting into a back and forth and I won't post again, just wanted to bring up another perspective in the hopes that you might consider moving toward an alternate viewpoint.
You never speed? Never rolled a stop sign? How many Class C misdemeanors do you commit every day? Why are those different?
Featured Stories
See All
7:07
15h ago
6.3k
Elko emphasizes community & fan involvement at first Coach's Night
by Olin Buchanan
REGISTER NOW: Preseason Kickoff 2024 with Coach Mike Elko
by Brandon Jones
19:06
1h ago
840
19:46
46m ago
503
My Aggie Story: Mary Stoiana '25 of Texas A&M women's tennis
by The 12th Man Foundation
31:02
20h ago
7.1k
Fightin TX Aggie
Conversation today with a former all-conference pitcher (Pac-10) about UGA cheating
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
67