TexasCHLforum.com

And PC30.05f reads:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that"
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

The DA's office in our county understands this to mean licensed CHL carry is allowed. They will not file charges based on your assertion. It would surprise me if any DA who reads tha statute would proceed differently.

That doesn't prevent a cop from trying to invent cop-law on the spot but that won't fly with the professionals.

Thank you for your reply. It is what I anticipated.

With your thought in mind, PC30.06e specifically prohibits governmental entities from enforcing the remainder of 30.06 for license holders.

And PC30.05 in non-applicable.

So what statute is going to be used to prosecute a CHL carrying in an otherwise legal area?

A govt entity cannot go around barring people from places and activities just because they feel like it. There has to be a reason and a statute to back it up.

I would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.

txinvestigator wrote: No, the law says YOU are exempt from 30.06 at a govt owned place. It does not say they cannot restrict.

Again, let me ask the question "where is the statute that gives them (govt entity) the ability to restrict?"

Absent that they have no authority. Yes?

I want to post a public apology to TXI. I have a bad habit of coming across poorly on the internet. TXI did not deserve my responses. I PM'ed him an apology and want to do it in front of all of us as well.

You have my sincere apology.

Arock

[quote="txinvestigator
That was not me. I have been a proponent of this since it passed.[/quote]

My sincere apologies.

Now answer the question.

txinvestigator wrote:

Arock wrote:

"txinvestigator

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

I disagree. PC30.06e clearly states the entirety of PC30.06 does not apply to a holder of license to carry concealed handgun on public owned or leased property not already covered by PC46.03 and PC46.035.

Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes.

If you were referring to this question;

I agree with you in part, again, I ask the question few want to answer, what will you do if they do not allow you entry? Force your way in?

And there is no penalty TO THEM if they post contrary to 30.06 and DO keep you out. Therefore the law does not restrict the entity from keeping you out, it simply makes it an an offense under 30.06 if it is a govt owned facility.

Thank you for admitting there is no law under which a licensed holder can be kept out of otherwise legal access to public properties.

I agree with you there is currently no law that penalizes a governmental entity for exceeding the limit of the statute.

However, that said, any prosecution of a licensed holder for attempting access to those legitimate areas exposes the governmental entity to prosecution for false arrest, official oppression, malicious prosecution etc not to mention civil damages.

I'll stand for my rights thank you even if others will not theirs.

txinvestigator wrote:

Arock wrote: IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

Please explain this. The presumption of traveling is not needed for a Peace Officer.

What I said, and maintain, is that if you meet the 5 elements of the presumption, then you ARE traveling. If you are traveling, then 46.02 is not applicable to you.

How did I not understand?

My recollection is it was you who took several pages of patient explanation before you finally conceeded the presumption of travelling statute worked to the benefit of the citizen.

Now answer my question per: "Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes."

txinvestigator wrote:

Arock wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

No actually, I understand it completely. You clearly don't understand how a defense to prosecution works. I suggest you read my post above.

Answer my question first.

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

txinvestigator wrote:

barres wrote:Some posts were made while I was typing my last post. TXI, you state that no law prevents a govermental entity from barring CHL'ers. Then what does PC30.06(e) do? If you're saying that it only prevents us from being successfully prosecuted for tresspass, then what good is the law? The law (IMHO and I think many others') was intended specifically to keep governmental entities from barring CHL'ers due to their carrying a weapon. In other words, to give us the ability to carry on government property.

I fully admit to being idealistic in expecting laws to do what they were intended. I may have to admit to being naive about a great many things, including some areas of the law. Please, educate me.

I agree the law is weak, but it is what it is.

What are you going to do when they search you and bar you from entering?

Tell them to step next door to the DA's office and ask under what statute I can be charged. It's just that simple. The DA's office knows there is none.

"txinvestigator

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

I disagree. PC30.06e clearly states the entirety of PC30.06 does not apply to a holder of license to carry concealed handgun on public owned or leased property not already covered by PC46.03 and PC46.035.

Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes.

Kau, you're right of course. What I meant to convey is the DA's office defers to the Sheriff's office on implementation of that policy.

Not to go off on a tangent but please keep up this discussion. Reading it got me off my lazy tail to call our local DA's office and press the issue of removing 30.06 signs from our local county government center. Asst DA said he already spoke with our Sheriff but no action had yet been taken. Asst DA says he has another meeting with Sheriff this afternoon and will again bring the subject. I know for a fact nothing has been done. When I had business at the government center last week the signs were still there and the SO manning the metal detector still said CHL holders were not allowed in the building. Asst DA says both he and the elected DA agree CHL's have access to everywhere in the building except courtrooms and judges' offices but Sheriff has control of the building so what happens is his decision. At last weekend's local gun show shook hands and made cordial conversation with SO Lt that handles NFA sign-offs just to make certain things were smooth in the Sheriff's office. Not gonna stop till we win this one.