TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote: However, the gang raiding scenario might be a bit flawed.
With all of the confusion over what is legal and right going on here, don't you think it would be even more so for those outside or our realm of understanding? As untrue as it is, the rest of the world is happy thinking we are deranged "gun nuts" who would "shoot first and ask questions later".
For all "they" know, everybody in there is armed to the teeth.
That'd sure keep me away, presuming I was John D. Badcritter.

Actually, that makes my point. For whatever reason, one's chances of having to fend off an armed robbery gang, or even a mugger, at a gun show are miniscule. And we know that dangerous AD's, including those involving injurys, happen from time to time at gun shows right here in TX. So it is evident to me that restricting loaded guns at gun shows is a net plus. Especially if the shows followed the other part of my recommendation to have storage lockers where people can check their carry guns going in.

As I pointed out on a previous post, a gun show is a crowded place where there is a lot of handling and dry firing of firearms going on. Rules that might make sense there do not necessarily make sense everywhere.

For instance, on the street, we know that robberies and aggravated assaults occur several hundred thousand times nationwide each year (ref. FBI UCR), including many thousands of times right here in TX. And we also know that AD's and/or accidental injuries (on the street) involving firearms OVERALL are at a very low level, and have been declining for years. That, plus the research of Jon Lott and the philosophical writings of Jeffery Snyder, among others makes it plain that CHL is a good thing.

And people are not drawing and/or dry firing guns on the street.

So there is no need for anyone (not you kauboy) to bring up false analogies and/or far-fetched slippery slope scenarios in rebuttle.

aardwolf wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But if they don't, I think the hazards posed by AD's at gun shows are greater than those posed by bad people.

If we compare ADs with shots fired at bad people, we can make the same argument for disarming FFDOs.

Maybe disarm FAMs too because they haven't shot any bad people recently.

Except that those arguments would be utter nonsense, because they proceed from a false premise - actually several of them.

The map doesn't equal the territory. And trying to argue from false analogies is a sure way to arrive at false conclusions.

kauboy wrote: If such a sign existed, and I missed it, then it wouldn't fit the "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public." stipulation, would it? Thereby making it null and void.

Not necessarily. Anybody can miss a sign, even if well posted. Just because any given person might happen to miss one doesn't automatically render it void.

kauboy wrote: Geez, semantics!
Perhaps a better choice of words (to untwist Fankie's girdle) would be "liberating".
I would feel liberated, as in, unbound by the tawdry confinements of unenforceable "No guns!" signs.

Is that better? Have I appeased you?

No. Washington types like to "revise and extend" their remarks as recorded in The Congressional Record. You can certainly do the same here as far as I am concerned. But people can also reserve the right to judge for themselves which version of your remarks, the original or the revised, is more accurate.

kauboy wrote: Believe me, I carry to protect myself, my wife, and my new little girl

OK. But given all of the gun handling, dry firing, etc. that occurs at gun shows, the crowded conditions, the relative dearth of "safe directions" for a muzzle to be pointed at, and considering the AD's we hear about once every few months, isn't it at least argueable that your family (assuming they accompanied you to the show) would be safer if CHL's were not carrying loaded guns at the show?

Look at it this way. We've all heard of instances where there have been AD's, and some even involved injury. In contrast, how many times have we heard of gun shows being raided by armed criminal gangs, or gun show patrons being mugged or robbed while going to or from their cars? Speaking for myself, I have not heard of such a thing in the last year or so. That kind of gives us some data points to estimate the relative risk.

And yes, I know that if you are CCing at a show or anywhere else, you are not supposed to be handling the gun for any reason. But people sometimes do things that they are not supposed to do, right?

kauboy wrote: (OH YEAH, BTW, I HAD A BABY GIRL WHILE ON SABBATICAL FROM THE FORUM )

Wooooo-hooooo! Babies are a blessing from God. Congratulations, man.

kauboy wrote: The idea that you would have me sacrifice my own, and their, security to bend to the wishes of a sign that in no way legally binds me from carrying my firearm, is appalling. If bad people can enter a church and do bad things, a gun show is by no means whatsoever a "safe haven".

Please note that I would have you do nothing of the kind.

My own position is that gun shows should provide lockers at the entrances so that people can unload/disarm as needed without forfeiting their means of protection while in the parking lot.

But if they don't, I think the hazards posed by AD's at gun shows are greater than those posed by bad people.

Kerbouchard wrote:I don't know anybody who runs a gunshow or I would ask them, but here it goes.

People running gunshows in TX are very likely to know the law. Why don't they just post a legal sign and be done with it?(arguments about gov't property aside)

Good question. I wish I knew.

FWIW, some shows do post compliant 30.06 signs.

kauboy wrote: Ok, just got back in from dinner after church with the folks.

i snagged the pic like I promised. Sadly, on Saturday I was suffering from something I like to call "selective reading disorder".
I missed the second "NO"



However, just as the preceding day, no 30.06 sign. I could have walked right in, but I was with a friend and didn't even want the remote possibility of causing any scene with him there(embarrassing), so I hoofed it on back to the truck and regretfully disarmed.

How do you know for sure that there isn't some compliant 30.06 sign somewhere that you also may have missed?

kauboy wrote: Now, with absolutely no 30.06 sign in sight, I think I have the board's complete and full endorsement that I would have been well within the law to walk right past the officers and into the venue packin heat. Right???

If there really is no 30.06 sign present, I think you would be legal, though IANAL. But be careful of selective reading disorder. Also, refer to various discussions here about the Katy Mills Mall.

kauboy wrote: Come May, when they return, I really hope the same scenario plays out and I can actually walk in armed. That will be exhilarating!

What's "exhilarating" about sneaking a gun into some place where the people in charge clearly do not want you to do so?

I carry a gun for protection (that I hope I will never need)- not to be exhilarated.

kauboy wrote: And Frankie, since you love to interpret real estate law, how does this argument strike you:

Noting that:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Question:
Would the "by" in this clause not constitute that the "government entity" is the one doing the leasing? Therefore, this law would overstep any other laws pertaining to a lease when a governmental entity is involved.
Else, it would be "leased to a government entity" if we were to assume that the government entity is at the "end of the chain", as you say.

You raise an interesting point.

I honestly don't know what it means.

Some would say that if the government owns the property (in fee simple), it can be sublet through 20 different private parties and that none of those private parties could enforceably post it because the government owns it. In that case, one could defy the postings and, if things got all the way to court there would be nothing to worry about because you would almost certainly win.

Some would say that a private party could own it in fee simple, and that it could be sublet through numerous other parties, and that if ANY of them are a government entity, no subsequent leasees can enforceably post the property. And again, in that case, one could defy the postings and, if things got all the way to court there would be nothing to worry about because you would almost certainly win.

But there are others (like me for instance) who would say that the "owner" or "leasee" that matters as far as the statute is concerned is the last one in the chain - i.e. the party that has operational control of the property at the time, in that they control access to it, determine the hours of operation, have the keys to the doors, hire the security, and have all of the other perogatives of ownership provided for in the lease, whether that lease is for 48 hours or 99 years. So under that interpretation, the posting is fully enforceable and if someone defies the rule and managed to push it far enough so as to get them to court they would lose and be tossed into the county jail.

Which interpretation is correct? I don't honestly know. But what I do know is that in real life these places make whatever rules they want and hire security that is instructed to enforce those rules, and that the hired security does in fact enforce those rules regardless of any opinions others may have to the contrary.

So if you go to one of these places and "explain" that their "no guns" rule is not enforceable and that you are going to "prove" that by entering the venue while carrying a loaded gun, you stand an excellent chance of being detained and becoming what is commonly known as "a test case."

Now we should note that such illustrious people as Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, and others have distinguished themselves at one time or another by intentionally becoming test cases.

So it could be that there is a chance for someone to achieve TX CHL rights immortality here by forcing the issue at one of these venues.

But I wouldn't recommend it.

FWIW, my recommendation is to simply follow the rules and refrain from posting information that could possibly mislead someone into getting themselves in trouble by becoming a test case when they did not want to.

I would also note that in other instances where venues were improperly posted, the TSRA has notified the government agencies involved and in many cases has succeeded in having the improper signs removed. No such action has been taken as far as I know with respect to the AA Center or the various places where gun shows are held in TX. I don't know if that means anything or not.

Annoyed Man,

You did the right thing. You went to the right people, asked the right questions, and got the right answers. If you want to know what is allowed, in the real world, you can't do better than asking the cops guarding the door. They know what the policy of the show operator is. And they know what they are out there to do.

We have all heard of reports from time to time of shows with "no guns" signs that also say something like, "Exception for CHL holders" or something like that. Upon closer inspection, such as at the Feb. show at the Crocket Center in Austin, it turns out that the signs say, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR CHL HOLDERS".

Some, including most people on this board, believe that government-owned venues may not enforce 30.06 postings or their legal equivalents. I am highly skeptical of such beliefs. In my view, it doesn't matter whether a government entity exists ANYWHERE in the chain of ownership. What matters is who the LAST member of the chain of ownership (i.e. the entity that is actually operating the venue, who has the keys, who sets the hours and terms of admission, etc.). If the operators are a government entity, they cannot post enforceable 30.06 signs. If they are a private business of some sort, they can.

There has never been a test case so none of us really know twhat the law means. But in the real world the operators of these venues, whether it is a gun show or a place like the AA Center in Dallas, act as if my interpretation is correct.

And that is what you will encounter when you visit such venues, interesting legal theories notwithstanding.