TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:

thetexan wrote:Gun buster signs have zero legal force. They mean nothing to you as an LTC. Nothing. Except to inform you that the owner apparently doesn't want guns in his establishment.

Not necessarily. Let's say you see this sign posted somewhere:



Does it mean:
1. "The owner/management of this properly doesn't like guns."
2. "The owner/management of this properly doesn't like guns, and we don't want anyone carrying them here."
3. "The owner/management of this properly doesn't like Beretta 92's."
4. "The owner/management of this properly doesn't like semi-auto pistols."
5. "The owner/management of this properly doesn't like semi-auto pistols if they're not carried cocked & locked."

An argument could be made for any of those. Anything other than a legit 30.06 or 30.07 sign is ambiguous at best.

It means that they have no Beretta's for sale at the moment. Maybe they just ran out?

Abraham wrote:So 'intent' equals the force of law?

Who knew..?

P.S, I'm still walking past gun buster signs.

Apparently so. So in the handful of cases where LEO's have been told they were not welcome at XYZ establishment, I suppose those LEO's should have been arrested for trespass if they didn't leave immediately, and instead asked for a manager, etc.? This whole thing is complete and total bull and is the type of thing that calls into question whether we should have any required "training" at all.

allisji wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Which caliber is best for self-defense?




JK

What to do with your gun when you have to use a bathroom stall

Glocks vs 1911's

diverman26 wrote:I would assume (I know, I know) that the LEO is pro LTC or he wouldn't be teaching the course. Having said that, I thought it odd that he would be so outside on this particular matter.

Even in a structured course such as the LTC, I can always tell which parts the instructor has a passion about. In this case it was the signage and safety (especially around children).

As an aside, just as I was proofreading this post another LEO came into my office to pick up a repaired piece of equipment. I asked him if had the same interpretation. His response was more in line with my thinking - "For what? If you were asked to leave then that's different, but if someone snuck into the back office and called, the worst I would do is explain that you should stay away from these people, they're idiots."

He also, unsolicited, opined about open carry. I only have 5 or so posts but even I know not to open that jar.

Merry Christmas to all.

I used to post on a poker strategy discussion board. They had a short list of banned topics that would be immediately closed by the moderators because they either had been hashed to death already or they were just a matter of personal opinion and / or likely to start a pointless fight. Topics included when to fold pocket aces pre-flop, and the appropriate amount to tip when you win a pot.

I would humbly suggest that we do the same here for posts about whether you should or should not open carry....

diverman26 wrote:Disclaimer: I have read just about every post on this topic and I am aware that it has been discussed to death, so I am sorry to bring it up again.

I am a very recent LTC Texan and the topic of prohibited locations was brought up in the class.
According to my instructor (an active & senior local LEO) - while the state has specifically stated what makes a legal notification in the form of a 30.06 and 30.07 sign, any notification that is reasonable (No Weapons Allowed, Gun Buster, etc) would also serve as notification and if called, HE would make an arrest for unlawful carry. Since we were in a class and I didn't have the knowledge that I have picked up in just the last 30 days I didn't challenge him.

I don't want to reignite the debate on this but I do have a couple of questions:

1. Is there case law yet which has tested this?

2. How would you approach the subject with the Instructor/LEO? I will likely see him again and would like to discuss this topic in more detail.

First, any "no guns" sign is "legal" as long as it is not posted on government property. It is not enforceable unless it meets the requirements of the law. As to your numbered questions:

1. Yes, I believe that there is case law which has addressed unlawful arrests by a LEO. In this case, since the LEO is also a qualified LTC instructor (who should know better), I think you would have a strong case in civil court if you were in fact arrested for UCW when you received no notice other than a non-compliant 30.06 type sign.

2. If I had a relationship with the LEO, I might have a conversation with him and let him know that he is ignorant on this law. If he is not receptive to this conversation, or I don't have much of a relationship with him, I would likely send a letter to his division chief, copying the city attorney, and informing them that this officer has threatened to make unlawful arrests in this manner. You might want to send this certified and keep a copy for your records. If the LEO is then obstinate enough to actually carry through on his threat, I think the civil judgment would fairly compensate you for your time and trouble.

We don't need LEO's that think they can just make up the law as they see fit, and who want to go around arresting people who do things they don't personally like. Such individuals are either ignorant (best case) or they are bully's who became LEO's so they could push people around.