I undertstand your point re: handog, but what about CHL in 1996? I believe this definition of "breaking the law" is subjective. If I clearly, legally, have a "Defense" at the time I commit an act, like carrying concealed on my person with CHL in 1996... am I "breaking the law"? In order to convict me at trial, the prosecution would have to refute my "Defense" beyond a reasonable doubt. This is part of the Texas PC. It's the same standard as for convicting someone of a crime without a "Defense", with the sole exception that IF you go to trial, the prosecution is not obligated to refute a "Defense" that you don't enter into evidence.Keith B wrote:You need to understand what the term 'Defense to Prosecution' means. This is not saying you didn't break the law. If you enter a 51% establishment without a sign, you ARE still breaking the law. The Defense to Prosecution means you have a good excuse for the DA or Judge to drop the charges of why you broke the law, because the business didn't post the sign and you didn't realize it was a 51% joint, but you still broke the law as written. You can still be prosecuted if they determine you actually knew it was a 51% place and carried there just because the business hadn't properly posted the sign.ScottDLS wrote: I would have to say based on the 2009 changes to the law that if a true 51% location didn't post properly, it is NOT the CHL responsibility to figure it out. Now if I was pretty sure the place was 51%, I would walk out. Defense to prosecution for 51% location not posted... now you have one AS OF 2009.
Could be arrested? Yes. So, every time I hear this argument I'm going to say that having a CHL was only "Defense" to UCW until 1997. So you "could be arrested". Take the ride. Pay for your defense. Sit in jail. Well I guess it could happen to anyone.
It even happened to "Handog" in the other thread and he didn't just have a defense. He was innocent. Still arrested, still took the ride, still sat in jail.
Wow, I'm wondering if I might get arrested for owning a handgun. It's not illegal, but I'm not sure if I want to "take the ride" if local DA or judge decides she doesn't like handguns and thinks "civilians" in Texas shouldn't own them. I mean I might be right, but do I really want to be the dreaded "test case".
In the case of handog, he DID NOT break the law and they determined even though arrested there was no violation and the Judge determined he hadn't broken the law (accidental per the Judge's words) so he was let go.
Carrying past a "gunbusters" is a "Defense" to 30.05...so is it legal? Texas law has this thing about prohibiting things, then providing a "Defense" in quite a few criminal statutes, so I'm just not comfortable agreeing that doing something with a clear "Defense" is illegal. If you can't legally be prosecuted for something without meeting the Constitutional "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, then how is it illegal? Maybe it's semantics...
-Scott