Is This Sign Legal?

[LucasMcCain]

Still, could a privately owned building put out portable signs like this and they be legal?

Absolutely. There is nothing that says the signs have to be permanent (to the best of my recollection). Portable signs allow certain events to be posted while others are not. For instance, a school sponsored event at a location that is not a school. The problem is, the 30.06 penal code doesn't have anything to do with school sponsored events. Most people just think that's the sign you put up if people can't carry somewhere. While I certainly want to be notified if there is a prohibited event somewhere so that I don't commit a crime by carrying there, they should really do so by referencing the correct section of the law.

[cb1000rider]

Really...he can tell that I'm carrying with his cop x-ray vision? But despite being one of law enforcement's concealed carry super spotters, he forgets that 30.06 doesn't apply and is only a class c anyway with no jail as a possible penalty. Then he calls the squad car to come and pick me up and doesn't bother to tell the dispatcher why he is transporting me and for what crime I'm being arrested.

Note, they can't sentence you to do additional time. However, the amount of time you spend sitting behind bars until arraignment, I'd personally consider "jail time". The only real requirement on arraignment seems to be a "reasonable time" - so you can spend up to a "reasonable time" in jail.

Watch out for guys with X-ray vision.

As discussed before, the LEO is probably indemnified for not knowing this little portion of the law.

[locke_n_load]

Really...he can tell that I'm carrying with his cop x-ray vision? But despite being one of law enforcement's concealed carry super spotters, he forgets that 30.06 doesn't apply and is only a class c anyway with no jail as a possible penalty. Then he calls the squad car to come and pick me up and doesn't bother to tell the dispatcher why he is transporting me and for what crime I'm being arrested.

Note, they can't sentence you to do additional time. However, the amount of time you spend sitting behind bars until arraignment, I'd personally consider "jail time". The only real requirement on arraignment seems to be a "reasonable time" - so you can spend up to a "reasonable time" in jail.

Watch out for guys with X-ray vision.

As discussed before, the LEO is probably indemnified for not knowing this little portion of the law.

Personally, if a super-vision LEO arrested me when 30.06 wasn't valid in the first place, and took me to jail even though it is a class C and not an arrestable offense, and I had to sit in jail until arraignment because the DA stated they had cause to keep me, I would be suing everyone involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. And I'd have a good shot at winning too.

On another note, you could also be struck by lightning, so you better stay at your home instead.

[cb1000rider]

Personally, if a super-vision LEO arrested me when 30.06 wasn't valid in the first place, and took me to jail even though it is a class C and not an arrestable offense, and I had to sit in jail until arraignment because the DA stated they had cause to keep me, I would be suing everyone involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. And I'd have a good shot at winning too.

You have a very poor shot at any civil remedy against the LEO. Remember the burden is what a "normal" person would know in terms of legal knowledge. If a normal person wouldn't know it, then the LEO is indemnified for doing his/her duty, albeit incorrectly.
The DA doesn't keep you there until arraigned, that's just standard process.... No one to sue there.

The only way this would work is if the arresting officer stood up and admitted that he/she knew the law and arrested you anyway. What are the chances of that happening?


I think the chances of this happening are pretty good your firearm was able to be spotted... Outside of that, lightening is about right.

[locke_n_load]

Personally, if a super-vision LEO arrested me when 30.06 wasn't valid in the first place, and took me to jail even though it is a class C and not an arrestable offense, and I had to sit in jail until arraignment because the DA stated they had cause to keep me, I would be suing everyone involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. And I'd have a good shot at winning too.

You have a very poor shot at any civil remedy against the LEO. Remember the burden is what a "normal" person would know in terms of legal knowledge. If a normal person wouldn't know it, then the LEO is indemnified for doing his/her duty, albeit incorrectly.
The DA doesn't keep you there until arraigned, that's just standard process.... No one to sue there.

The only way this would work is if the arresting officer stood up and admitted that he/she knew the law and arrested you anyway. What are the chances of that happening?


I think the chances of this happening are pretty good your firearm was able to be spotted... Outside of that, lightening is about right.

See below for people being arrested where carrying was lawful, then they sued and won some good money. It happens.

http://affluentinvestor.com/2015/06/cop ... gets-sued/

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s ... gun_s.html

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/gun-owner-ge ... al-arrest/

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cops- ... pay-video/

[cb1000rider]

Thanks for posting those. The more cases that throw out qualified immunity, the better.

I'd argue that these are pretty egregious cases - basically indicating a lack of basic legal knowledge about the right to carry a firearm. Cases where there is a valid 30.06/30.07 sign on government owned building is a bit more nuanced... You and I know, but I'll bet lots of LEOs don't know - or may indicate that they have no first hand knowledge of who actually owns a building.

Last, I'd point out the Temple open-carry case of Grisham, where he was arrested, was convicted, and was unable to successfully sue - as you've linked to other open-carry incidents.. It's a risky proposition. Or at least, it was...

[WildBill]

Personally, if a super-vision LEO arrested me when 30.06 wasn't valid in the first place, and took me to jail even though it is a class C and not an arrestable offense, and I had to sit in jail until arraignment because the DA stated they had cause to keep me, I would be suing everyone involved for false arrest and false imprisonment. And I'd have a good shot at winning too.

You have a very poor shot at any civil remedy against the LEO. Remember the burden is what a "normal" person would know in terms of legal knowledge. If a normal person wouldn't know it, then the LEO is indemnified for doing his/her duty, albeit incorrectly.
The DA doesn't keep you there until arraigned, that's just standard process.... No one to sue there.

The only way this would work is if the arresting officer stood up and admitted that he/she knew the law and arrested you anyway. What are the chances of that happening?


I think the chances of this happening are pretty good your firearm was able to be spotted... Outside of that, lightening is about right.

See below for people being arrested where carrying was lawful, then they sued and won some good money. It happens.

http://affluentinvestor.com/2015/06/cop ... gets-sued/

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s ... gun_s.html

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/gun-owner-ge ... al-arrest/

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/cops- ... pay-video/

Thanks for posting the links.

[WildBill]

Thanks for posting those. The more cases that throw out qualified immunity, the better.

I'd argue that these are pretty egregious cases - basically indicating a lack of basic legal knowledge about the right to carry a firearm. Cases where there is a valid 30.06/30.07 sign on government owned building is a bit more nuanced... You and I know, but I'll bet lots of LEOs don't know - or may indicate that they have no first hand knowledge of who actually owns a building.

Last, I'd point out the Temple open-carry case of Grisham, where he was arrested, was convicted, and was unable to successfully sue - as you've linked to other open-carry incidents.. It's a risky proposition. Or at least, it was...

A guy like this would have a very hard time winning a case like this.

Usually a jury has to like the guy or feel some empathy for him to award him any money.

I can imagine how his testimony would endear a jury so that they felt he was an innocent victim who was wronged.

[cb1000rider]

I can imagine how his testimony would endear a jury so that they felt he was an innocent victim who was wronged.

WildBill, I can present it from either side. Don't confuse my ability to do that with my opinion on right or wrong.

If you think I'd present my case indicating that I felt the LEO who arrested me was probably covered by qualified immunity, then you're right, I'd have a very poor outcome. You have to understand that I'm not arguing my opinion. My opinion is that arresting someone for doing something perfectly legal is wrong and should be cause for civil action.

I'm pointing out that if you think you can walk into a place that's 30.06/30.07 posted and government owned, get arrested, and believe that you'll have a good outcome in a civil trial, you might want to reconsider. If it was that simple, it'd be a money-maker and people would be doing it....

The difference in the cases pointed out above was that those arrests were very absent of legal context. That is, they violated something pretty fundamental - such as arresting someone for carrying a gun in public. Every officer should know that one.. Arresting at a 30.06 / 30.07 posted location when it's government owned - you have to know about the government owned exclusion. It's something that you and I talk about every day, but it's possible that a jury might believe that a "reasonable" person might not be aware of it...

You guys are welcome to do as you wish. And honestly, I fully support people being test subjects and I might even contribute to your legal defense. That's really the only way these issues get worked out long term.... My point is that if you expect a positive civil outcome in a case like this, your optimism exceeds mine. Please, don't confuse my personal opinion on right and wrong with speculation on civil outcomes...

[Tracker]

Just so happens I went to Love Field (owned by the city of Dallas) yesterday to pick up my wife. I walked right past the invalid "Firearms prohibited on premise" gun buster sign and met her at baggage claim. Suppose security had spotted me carrying and attempted to arrest me, I'd be insisting he get his/her supervisor there (someone knowledgeable about the law) If they refused and gave me a ride downtown I doubt the DA would charge him/her but I got grounds for a lawsuit.

[338winmag]

You people should google 42USC 1983.

I know around here, they seem to violate it on a regular basis. It seems to me they have a standard rate of 20K per day spent locked up on one of these cases. Most of the cases around here involving depriving someone of their rights under color of authority, have the awards are sealed.

This is law that dates back to the time right after the war of northern aggression, when people in the south were harassing blacks. It's pretty cut and dried.

[cb1000rider]

Tracker, You don't need grounds for a lawsuit. You can sue anyone.
And the gun-busters sign thing - you're right, someone could get that wrong, but it's a lot easier to get the 30.06/30.07 and government property thing wrong, heck, lots of cases we have to look up who owns the property.


Saving someone else from looking it up:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

[WildBill]

I can imagine how his testimony would endear a jury so that they felt he was an innocent victim who was wronged.

WildBill, I can present it from either side. Don't confuse my ability to do that with my opinion on right or wrong.

If you think I'd present my case indicating that I felt the LEO who arrested me was probably covered by qualified immunity, then you're right, I'd have a very poor outcome. You have to understand that I'm not arguing my opinion. My opinion is that arresting someone for doing something perfectly legal is wrong and should be cause for civil action.

I'm pointing out that if you think you can walk into a place that's 30.06/30.07 posted and government owned, get arrested, and believe that you'll have a good outcome in a civil trial, you might want to reconsider. If it was that simple, it'd be a money-maker and people would be doing it....

The difference in the cases pointed out above was that those arrests were very absent of legal context. That is, they violated something pretty fundamental - such as arresting someone for carrying a gun in public. Every officer should know that one.. Arresting at a 30.06 / 30.07 posted location when it's government owned - you have to know about the government owned exclusion. It's something that you and I talk about every day, but it's possible that a jury might believe that a "reasonable" person might not be aware of it...

You guys are welcome to do as you wish. And honestly, I fully support people being test subjects and I might even contribute to your legal defense. That's really the only way these issues get worked out long term.... My point is that if you expect a positive civil outcome in a case like this, your optimism exceeds mine. Please, don't confuse my personal opinion on right and wrong with speculation on civil outcomes...

Go back six posts. This quote was meant to be sarcastic:
[quote]I can imagine how his testimony would endear a jury so that they felt he was an innocent victim who was wronged.[/quote]

I wasn't very clear, but I was referring only to Grisham not being able to successfully win a lawsuit because of his loud mouth and alleged obnoxious personality.

I apologize for the confusion.

[GlassG19]

Can't say anything cause I can't SEE (read) anything,, too blurry for me too.

[cb1000rider]

I wasn't very clear, but I was referring only to Grisham not being able to successfully win a lawsuit because of his loud mouth and alleged obnoxious personality.

I apologize for the confusion. :

My apologies for the lack of comprehension..
I didn't see any coverage of Grisham's trial, but I'd be surprised if his attorney let him say anything.
Liking / not-liking Grisham not withstanding, I was shocked by the outcome of that trial. Goes to show you that even criminal outcomes can be very unpredictable..