Okay, I was reading the "and" at the end of (1) as an "or". Makes a little more sense now. So you can't say "no handguns allowed" and keep out a peace officer because he is armed, but you say "you are not allowed because I don't know you or I don't like you or I don't want you here" and they would have to leave or be in violation of 30.05.RoyGBiv wrote:The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).Jaguar wrote:Wow, I never read all of 30.05, now that I have I am surprised by it.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.
Chas.
Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
So what limits are there on Peace Officers that forbid them to enter or stay on property of another? It looks like the Third and Fouth Amendment took a holiday when they wrote this law.
Wait, now Keith is saying that is not correct...
