TexasCHLforum.com

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:47 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:48 pm My view of the term civilian always included LEOs too unless they were currently serving on active duty in the uniformed armed services of the United States. Cops are civilians, Marines are not... FBI, civilian. US Army, not.

That is correct. Subject to UCMJ.

NNT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:39 pm

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:30 am A right is a possessed power of a freedom to do or freedom from

I think we will not agree on the symantics of the definition. I'm ok with that.

I am ok to be a civilian, not a subject.

More on topic I suppose, I believe police must work within the laws, and they obviously have more law enforcement authority than I do. I would like to carry where they can, but if I can't, I still want them to. I don't think they should get perks due to the job, but it happens. Every Leo I know personally speeds and never stops at stop signs in their personal car.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:21 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:56 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 12:25 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:35 am

OlBill wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:30 am Police have no more rights than any other person in this country. . . . What they have are specified delegated authorities to perform the functions of their assigned tasks.

You are correct. However, in order to bar any citizen that is not carrying under the authority of their LTC from private property, the property owner must rely upon TPC §30.05. Subsection 30.05(i) reads as follows:

(i) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Chas.

So a property owner could prohibit police officers in general, but if they want to bar guns, then that prohibition would not apply to a police officer (unless the property owner separately barred LEO's on the basis that they are LEO's). In a sense this seems like a bit of a moot point. I see a potential interaction going something like this:

Property owner (PO): "Hey, you need to leave because we don't allow guns in here".

LEO: "Sir, I don't need to leave because that prohibition does not apply to me as a police officer."

PO: "OK, then I am now deciding that you need to leave because I don't want you here, with or without a gun."

The property owner would still be able to decide at any point that they don't want that specific officer there, or don't want LEO's, or tall people, or whatever. As long as the reason for the prohibition was not only related to the LEO having a gun.

Yep, if the property owner was prone to lie.

Chas.

But in my hypothetical exchange it wouldn't necessarily be a lie. If I don't like X object (for whatever reason) and tell people that they can't bring X onto my property, and someone rightly points out that they can bring X into my store if they want to because they are ______ (fill in the blank), I might reasonably decide that, you know what, you are technically correct, but I really don't want you here at all if you are going to be that disrespectful of my wishes. That's what I meant by it being a moot point at the end of the day.