TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

• (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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:01 am . . . I agree with others in this thread that the same policy should apply to LEO's, especially plain clothes.

baseballguy2001 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:53 am The REAL question in my mind is, How did this make the news? Did the LEO call a friend in the media? Did the Manager call? Did the reporter witness the event? Thousands of people go in fast food joints all the time and it never makes news, but if a privileged LEO gets denied his Whataburger with cheese, well, that deserves some media attention. Maybe the manager is new or just not too bright and thought the policy meant ALL open carried weapons? Maybe the coverage is to try and purposely make Whataburger look bad? How did this make the news, and what's the purpose, that's what needs to be answered.

Odinvalknir wrote: ↑Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:43 pm I lived in Friendswood for 20 some odd years. It very well could've been an issue with the cop that the manager had. I respect all police officers, but many Friendswood cops have been looked at questioningly by many residents, including clean cut law abiding folk, not just criminals mad because they got caught lol.


Or could just be an idiot store manager.