TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

G0C wrote:George Orwell hit the nail on the head. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

While people are upset about this perceived "privilege" as some call it in this thread, or as you refer to equality, I noticed on a different thread that is running that veterans and active duty under 21 can obtain a CHL. That "privilege' has caused other states to not off reciprocity with TX chls....., so LEO's are not the only one in TX with a "perceived privilege", and I don't see any LEO "privileges" harming CHL holders.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh what a surprise -- you are defending the indefensible again solely because it applies to LEOs.

Your attempt to divert the discussion doesn't work, but since you decided to post, please give us your justification for not applying TPC §30.05 to off-duty LEOs. I can't wait to hear this.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(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.

Wow, I never read all of 30.05, now that I have I am surprised by it.

So what limits are there on Peace Officers that forbid them to enter or stay on property of another? It looks like the Third and Fouth Amendment took a holiday when they wrote this law.

The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).

Correct. You can have and enforce a "no guns" policy against anyone and everyone, except a LEO, including an out-of-state LEO.

Yes, I know some people will argue that it's no big deal because you can simply give some other reason to bar someone. While this is true, 1) Texas law shouldn't put honest people in a position where they must lie to keep people out of their homes and other private property; and 2) most people have no idea that TPC §30.05 contains this limitation related to LEO's so they won't know the Legislature has forced them to lie if they don't want that person on their property.

Chas.

Most folks would be shocked to see the list of very pro-gun, A-Rated officials who signed onto that bill. Only two are still in the House, but others were standard bearers for the Second Amendment and gun owners. I was furious, but because of the players, I couldn't say much. The provision about LEO's was so far outside the caption, that it clearly violated the germane rule in the House, but no one called a point-of-order. In case you can't tell, this still makes me hot!!

Chas.

EEllis wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(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, might I ask what the issue is with that law and your dislike for it?

I assume it is either privet property owner rights deal.. or that it gives a LEO a protected privileged that should also be afforded a CHL'er...
But wanted to ask.

Thanks

Erik

Private property owners cannot bar an armed LEO from their property, even their home. It makes no difference if the LEO is there on official business, or is off-duty. That's absurd! (LEOs, please don't tell me you're never off-duty.)

Chas.

Well is it that they cannot bar them from being armed or that there is no consequence for ignoring the wishes of the property owner?

I don't understand your question. The only way to bar an armed CHL from one's private property is by use of TPC §30.06. The only way to bar any non-CHL is by use of TPC §30.05 and LEO's are exempt from §30.05, if the reason for barring their entry is the fact that they have a gun.

If I have a social event at my home and a LEO friend comes, I cannot bar him from entering or staying on the property because I have no legal recourse to have him removed or prosecuted, as I would with a non-LEO. That's utterly absurd.

Chas.

E.Marquez wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(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, might I ask what the issue is with that law and your dislike for it?

I assume it is either privet property owner rights deal.. or that it gives a LEO a protected privileged that should also be afforded a CHL'er...
But wanted to ask.

Thanks

Erik

Private property owners cannot bar an armed LEO from their property, even their home. It makes no difference if the LEO is there on official business, or is off-duty. That's absurd! (LEOs, please don't tell me you're never off-duty.)

Chas.

It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(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.

Get back on topic and stop the bickering or this thread will be locked.
Chas.