TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:This sign is a valid legal sign. If you carry where this sign is posted you would be committing a class A misdemeanor.

Except that we're back to the fact that DMA is owned by the City of Dallas, so a 30.06 notice isn't valid.

We are still talking about DMA, aren't we? I lost track about five pages ago...

Kevin

kauboy wrote:Block letters are all capitalized and all the same height (same width too, I think).

There is no single definition of "block letters", and no requirement that they be all capitals. Of the varying definitions, the only thing in common is that "block" means "not cursive or script".

It would be rather futile to argue that mixed-case signage doesn't meet the requirement just because the lower-case letters were less than 1" in height. Especially if they were all of the same scale.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

My mistake. I didn't realize we were restricted to the "TXI Dictionary".

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

Your second sentence answers the first.

Making things defenses or presumptions, which still leave the citizen subject to arrest, is part of the philosophy of, "He needed arrestin', yer honor!" In other words, "I didn't catch him doing anything wrong, exactly, but if I can arrest him anyway and shake this tree hard enough, I know some nuts are gonna fall."

Selective enforcement is one of the more offensive parts of the law, and our laws are designed for, and beg for, enforcement to be selective.

Kevin

Again, not true at all. The legislators wrote the law, not the cops.

I didn't say nor imply that the cops write the law. I said that it is written deliberately to make it easy to selectively enforce.

Please explain how that is "not true at all".

Selective enforcement has nothing to do with it. If an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, then he arrests.

Selective enforcement has everything to do with it. Any time that an officer could arrest, but doesn't, he's engaging in selective enforcement. And thank goodness that they do, because the jails wouldn't hold all of the "technical" violators.

Any time a law offers an exemption other than "does not apply", then it allows for an arrest and all the subsequent hassle, even if no charges are filed, and even if it's 100% certaint that a stated "defense to prosecution" would be successful.

So again, tell me how it's "not true at all" that the laws allow for selective enforcement.

Kevin

seamusTX wrote:I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

Your second sentence answers the first.

Making things defenses or presumptions, which still leave the citizen subject to arrest, is part of the philosophy of, "He needed arrestin', yer honor!" In other words, "I didn't catch him doing anything wrong, exactly, but if I can arrest him anyway and shake this tree hard enough, I know some nuts are gonna fall."

Selective enforcement is one of the more offensive parts of the law, and our laws are designed for, and beg for, enforcement to be selective.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I'm also sure that the DMA Board of Trustees feels differently, even if Dallas does own the buildings. But, bottom line, any 30.06 postings they make cannot be enforced legally.

Kevin

Agreed, but here is the quandary. The law does not say that governments cannot prohibit CHL's from entering. It says that if they post 30.06 you are not obligated to obey it.

If they wand you or pat you down and discover the weapon, they can deny you entrance based on verbal notice under 30.05. Having a CHL is only a defense to prosecution under 30.05, meaning you can be arrested for trespass if you refuse to leave after being told to leave.

Exactly. That's why I was careful to only say that their 30.06 postings can't be enforced. Many people are under the mistaken impression that it's somehow illegal for them to post 30.06; thanks for elaborating on that point.

Someone with a lot of time and money and willingness to be a test case, could argue that since only the Legislature can regulate the wearing of arms, no political subdivision has any authority to deny concealed carry. They might even win the case. But only after spending a lot of time and money being the test case.

Follow up posted in the "Goals for 2007" topic.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... hp?p=50263

Kevin

lrb111 wrote:Of course, one wonders if the Dallas museum of art is owned by the city of Dallas.

Looking at the DMA's history, I find these tidbits:

A contract transferring ownership of the art to the city was signed in March of 1909, and the gallery was formally opened and presented to the city of Dallas in April 1909.

1927 A city bond issue passed, providing $500,000 in city bonds for building and equipping a new Museum facility

1934–1935 The Depression caused the city to cut the Museum's budget to $5,500 per year. City bonds worth $500,000 were sold to build a new Museum facility in Fair Park.

1979 A city bond election was passed and Dallas voters pledged $24.8 million toward the construction of a new museum building downtown.

1984 The name was changed to the Dallas Museum of Art when the Museum moved to its new location downtown.

According to the tax records, 1717 N. Harwood is owned by the City of Dallas.

I'm also sure that the DMA Board of Trustees feels differently, even if Dallas does own the buildings. But, bottom line, any 30.06 postings they make cannot be enforced legally.

Kevin