TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:She was not arrested for violating the sign, she was arrested for violating policy that she was given notice of. See my post regarding the response from the Police Chief. They consulted the DA already. BTW, this was a psychiatric hospital where even LEOs must disarm.

I agree. I had not gotten to your response when I wrote that. From what I can see now, the question would be if the writing was in the wording of 30.06. And it seems, from the news reports posted, that it will be an interesting test case for the jury and appeals court. Of course,t hat may change when the lawyers start playing with it.

And, for everyone else, it may also help to cover the department from a civil lawsuit if the DA accepts the case and does prosecute, even if he loses. The department is allowed to rely on the advice of the DA as to the legality of the arrest.

Russell wrote:I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

Both to be nice and out of common sense. The one area you do not want a weapon is a pysch ward. They may do anything unpredictably, and many seem to have superhuman strength while they are also feeling no pain. Given that, weapon control and retention would be much harder.

But I have carried into the emergency detention psych ward at University Hospital in San Antonio, both when taking a prisoner in and when responding to a call for help. In each case of a call, there was simply no time to secure it and still be there in time to help. Twice, when detaining someone who was violent, there was no way we could get our weapons secure and still maintain control of the patient.

The law on carrying in hospitals does not apply to police officers.

Russell wrote:What "other sign" are you talking about, and how would this other sign apply to a CHL holder? It has been my understanding for quite some time that the only two signs a CHL holder has to pay attention to are a 30.06 sign and a 51% sign, that's it.

One of the signs I refer to is the one that every hospital and nursing home in the state is required by law to post. Under the Government Code, Section 411.204, they must post at each entrance a sign with the same wording as the 51 sign but without the red 51.

With this law, which is contradictory to 46.035, it appears to still forbid CHL's from carrying in a hospital. If they had this sign posted, then the city and officer would have a defense from a civil suit due to the nature of the law.

The other sign I refer to is what they appear to have (from another post), which is a short sign saying no guns allowed. This is the same as a ghost buster sign and is totally invalid.

Given the sign does not match either statute, there is clearly no case. I am just concerned about the conflict in the GC wording maybe biting a CHL until the law is clarified, either by case law or the legislature.

I think this case will be dropped by the D.A., and I recommend a suit against the PD for civil rights violations. I also recommend an expungement of the case from her records, which is a second special lawsuit.

Just for clarification, the hospital spokesman did not claim it was a violation of the Health and safety code. They said the Health Resources Code of Conduct. This is their private (or maybe an industry) behavior plan and not a law.

The police Lt. is saying she violated 46.035. He clearly needs to learn to read the law better if he thinks there are no exceptions to this.

As for the law suit, I would think the officer himself is clear of any liability, but the department has a fairly clear failure to train vicarious liability.

I wish the picture of the sign had been clearer. Before I can say she clearly violated the law, I want to actually read the sign. I am still not convinced it has to be 30.06 wording and think it could be the wording of the 51% sign without the red 51. But it definitely has to be one of the two to be valid. I tend to agree that it has to be 30.06 compliant, but the wording of the government code law says the hospital has to place the other sign. I could see the city having no liability if it had the GC wording due to the contradictory wording of the laws.

But if it is just a no guns sign, she is golden.