Fort Worth Gun Show Posted?

[The Annoyed Man]

Frankie says, "FWIW, my recommendation is to simply follow the rules and refrain from posting information that could possibly mislead someone into getting themselves in trouble by becoming a test case when they did not want to."

That says it in a nutshell, Frankie. Cherish your individual principles, but do not cause a newbie to innocently test your principles out when you state a disputed theory as being the gospel. If you feel strongly that you are right, have the courage to test your principles yourself, as did those courageous men and women Frankie mentions.

Jim

Jim, that is exactly why I complied with the officer in question rather than making an issue of the signage. I do cherish my CHL, and I do feel that, in all humility, it sets me apart from other people. It is not something I wish to put at risk where the situation is ambiguous.

In a parallel example, I recently attended the North Texas Irish Festival at the Fair Park in Dallas. There was a large, improperly worded and therefore legally insignificant sign at the entrance which barred entrance for a long list of different weapons types - broadswords, claymores, daggers, scimtars, etc., etc., etc., including guns. However, there were no stern looking Dallas PD officers at the entrance to make sure that all such regulations were being enforced. I carried right past the sign and went on in, confident that I was within my rights. And in fact, once inside, I saw all kinds of people carrying around broadswords, claymores, daggers, scimtars, etc., etc., etc., including a few whom I suspected were CCW'ing.

FWIW, the Fort Worth gun show entrance had a whole different vibe to it, and that is what set me back and caused me to doubt the wisdom of challenging the rules.

[57Coastie]

A. M. writes, "Jim, that is exactly why I complied with the officer in question rather than making an issue of the signage. I do cherish my CHL, and I do feel that, in all humility, it sets me apart from other people. It is not something I wish to put at risk where the situation is ambiguous."

I of course did not, and would not, express criticism toward an individual here, A. M., other than accidentally. If my post looks that way I will humbly apologize. It appears to me that you could not have handled the situation better. (a) you recognized that the situation was ambiguous, and (b) you exercised wisdom and restraint in not provoking a bad situation without there being a lot at stake, when acting to the contrary could cost us all. It would appear to me that we do not differ greatly, if at all, as to the real issue here.

Our just having discussions like this perhaps points out to those without our experience with CCW that all is not either black or white, but there are gradients of gray out there.

Tks, Jim

[Mike1951]

The officers had us unload both guns and the magazines and even gave us a little ziplock baggie so the ammo wasn't loose in our pockets.

Let me alter your situation slightly and see if it would have made any difference to you.

Loose ammunition or ammunition in magazines is also not allowed in most shows, no matter whether they sell ammuntion inside.

What if you were given the choice of discarding your loose ammo or returning to your vehicle to leave it there?

I had unloaded my PPK outside and presented it to have it tied. I foolishly admitted, when asked, that I had the seven rounds of loose ammo in my pocket and these were the options given me.

To make it worse, I had ridden with someone who had already gone inside and I didn't have access to his truck.

[57Coastie]

Mike,

The Devil's Advocate is heard from again.

One might frame your initial options somewhat differently. That is, in the situation described, when asked if one is carrying ammo, she would have had three options, that is,

a. Tell the truth,

b. Lie, or

c. Refuse to answer the LEO asking her the question, pleading the 5th Amendment. (The question of what offense, if any, it is of which she need not incriminate herself of course opens up an entirely new ball of wax, but one which cannot be easily handled here.)

I would submit that it would not be "foolish" for her to tell the truth, and that this is not very good advice to be giving other CHL holders or those hoping to obtain one. All it would have cost her, given your scenario, is the loss of seven rounds or a walk back to her car. She was given exceedingly reasonable alternatives.

As a very pertinent example for this young lady, and one which I would suspect that she would understand, I would refer her to the case of Martha Stewart, who was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators, and sent to a confinement facility, in short for denying that she did something which it was ultimately decided that she had in fact done. The point is that the 5th Amendment says you do not have to talk, but if you choose to talk you had best tell the truth, at least when you are under oath, or when, like in this case, I would suggest, you are talking to an LEO. Or, to rephrase the point a bit, if you say to an LEO that you are not guilty, you should be darned sure that you are in fact not guilty.

If I were less than charitable I might suggest once again that we old-timers must take care not to suggest to the less experienced that they do something which could cost them dearly.

Jim

[Mike1951]

I think the option of carrying the loose ammo in a zip-loc bag is a courtesy I would like to see around here.

The restriction of not entering the show with loose ammo is so asenine as to deserve no respect at all.

Let's see, you can carry your tied gun in, you can carry your magazines in, but not being able to carry a few rounds into a venue where tens of thousands of rounds are being sold, that makes a lot of sense.

The incident with the PPK happened before concealed carry was enacted. But it formed the basis for a decision that I adhere to this day. I purposely didn't add comments that would turn this into a 'carry at gun show' thread. But anyone wanting to know my opinions can certainly find them here.

[kauboy]

Ok, just got back in from dinner after church with the folks.

i snagged the pic like I promised. Sadly, on Saturday I was suffering from something I like to call "selective reading disorder".
I missed the second "NO"



However, just as the preceding day, no 30.06 sign. I could have walked right in, but I was with a friend and didn't even want the remote possibility of causing any scene with him there(embarrassing), so I hoofed it on back to the truck and regretfully disarmed.

Now, with absolutely no 30.06 sign in sight, I think I have the board's complete and full endorsement that I would have been well within the law to walk right past the officers and into the venue packin heat. Right???

Come May, when they return, I really hope the same scenario plays out and I can actually walk in armed. That will be exhilarating!

[The Annoyed Man]

kauboy, FWIW, you've restored my faith in my eyesight and memory retention, although I have to confess that I did not see the "includes CHLs" tagline either. But as I recall, there were a couple of guys standing in front of me, and they may have obstructed my view just a tad.

Whew!

[KBCraig]

Just out of curiosity, how does the presence of two officers at a zip-tie table turn a non-30.06 sign into a valid sign? Why would you even stop at that table? And if stopping was unavoidable, how would those officers know you're carrying?

[kauboy]

Kraig, the main point here is, this time there was no 30.06 sign to speak of. Anywhere!
I do agree that the presence of officers in no way enforces an unenforceable sign, but it sure does add a slight discomfort factor to those fresh to CHL.

While I may have read the sign improperly and assumed they were now in favor of CHL, I'm still pleased to see that they no longer attempt to restrict carry based on an unenforceable 30.06 sign.

[The Annoyed Man]

I do agree that the presence of officers in no way enforces an unenforceable sign, but it sure does add a slight discomfort factor to those fresh to CHL.

And that is what happened to me. Being new to CHL, I was tentative and decided to err on the side of caution. I would like to take a moment to say that all of the input I've received here, pro and con, has been instructive to me and will help to inform my future decision making in similar circumstances.

[Barron76]

I was there on Saturday & a CHL holder was arguing with the Officer at the table and the Officer told him that he had three choices, he could "have him unload & zip tie the weapon, go home or be arrested..." he chose to secure the weapon in his vehicle & come back unarmed.

Also, I was taught in my CHL class that if there is an "unenforceable" (not a 30.06) sign that you can walk right past but if you are given specific orders either verbal or in writting stating that you cannot carry inside an establishment even with a CHL then that is as good as a 30.06 sign and you can still be in trouble for criminal trespass at that point... I think the sign at the show was pretty clear they did not want CHL holders carrying & the Officers were pretty vocal about it as well.

[kauboy]

Also, I was taught in my CHL class that if there is an "unenforceable" (not a 30.06) sign that you can walk right past but if you are given specific orders either verbal or in writting stating that you cannot carry inside an establishment even with a CHL then that is as good as a 30.06 sign and you can still be in trouble for criminal trespass at that point...

Firstly, had there been a sign, I still disagree that any part of 30.06 can be legally enforced on government owned property.
Second, you are correct on verbal notice, if done so by the owner, or someone under the owners authority. But, if I had walked through the line, paid my fee and not said a word, they wouldn't have reason to give me verbal notice, and all would be peachy.
You are correct on the two above points.
However, any "written" notice must still contain the language exactly as described in 30.06. Formatting aside, the words must be the same.
Any writing other than that described in 30.06 of the Penal Code is considered null and void to a CHL carrier.
The signs at the show were non-compliant.

And I think that officer was out of line. He'd never admit it, because he probably doesn't know it.
Very few officers fully understand CHL law as it exists today.

[bpet]

Very few officers fully understand CHL law as it exists today.

Oh really!

Bet they know enough to get you into some significant trouble the first time you want to argue with them or disobey one of their verbal directives.

[kauboy]

I knew some cocky soul would find that offensive.
It wasn't meant to be.
And he can blow his "verbal directive" out his ear.
An officer cannot just order you do do anything he wants at his whim without due cause.

[boomerang]

Bet they know enough to get you into some significant trouble the first time you want to argue with them or disobey one of their verbal directives.

Muggers, rapists and other violent criminals might give you trouble the first time you want to argue with them or disobey one of their verbal directives.

That doesn't make them legally or morally right.