TexasCHLforum.com

Here is the website of the paper but it is subscription-based so you may not get in. http://www.levellandnews.net/ 9-28-2014 edition, Page 2 bottom left corner.

On Sept 18 a Levelland man entered a local clinic. At some point someone saw his gun and texted the police. They escorted him out and he, apparently, did so without incidence. They showed him the sign on the door and had him put his firearm in his car then took his CHL from him stating they will charge him with unlawful carrying of a handgun by a license holder.

Just a slight problem. Here is the sign.



The door opposite of it had no sign at all and that is the door he used. So he can honestly say he didn't see any sign much less one that he does not have to comply with.

I have been in contact with the man and he says he has contacted a lawyer. I have also spoken with the newspaper as they ran the story and were very interested in the follow-up.

Aside from some possible legal fees it appears this is a case of the police not knowing the law and the man should get his license back without too much trouble. I hope the police see the mistake and give it back without incidence and this doesn't escalate.

As a side note, who texts the police?

I can text or facebook message our sheriff.

This is why I am careful about assuming cops always know the law and that the DA's and courts will do the right thing. It is costly even when right sometimes.

If the city lost the case, if the DA did not drop the charges, all legal fees should be reimbursed, no?

You're right, I can't seem to read the story without a subscription.

But with the facts presented as above, I don't see how such charges would hold water. There would have to be something else, like someone in the clinic told him to leave first, or when he first registered he signed a registration document that had the correct 30.06 verbiage on it. (Seems unlikely to me).

At this point in the CHL law's history, I don't see any respectable reason that the police would get this wrong.

Did they get him for passing the sign? Or possibly becuase his weapon was exposed?

If this is the real story then the City should be forced to reimburse him for every penny he is out. He deserves punitive damages as well.

Keith B wrote:Did they get him for passing the sign? Or possibly becuase his weapon was exposed?

Did he expose the gun intentionally?

The arrest should voided right away, and the officer that arrested him should be required to apologize to the arrestee for not knowing, and more importantly, not asking a supervisor if he was unsure of the law.

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Did they get him for passing the sign? Or possibly becuase his weapon was exposed?

Did he expose the gun intentionally?

To the best of my knowledge by talking with the individual and the paper it was not a case of "intentionally displaying" a weapon. I did not question him on the matter in detail as I don't feel that it is my business, as much as I might be interested.

According to the article he was going to be charged with "unlawful carrying of a handgun by a license holder" of which "intentionally displaying" falls under.

More from the article "(He) did not mean to enter the clinic with the handgun"

"I didn't do it intentionally," he said. "It was unintentional. It wan't like I was in there flashing it."

So there may be more to the story than we know depending on how you read the quotes. The police took him out to look at the sign so it seems they were concerned with him being in an off-limits place.

If he was in the clinic I would assume that he might be in a position of removing a garment that would expose his handgun that he didn't realize he was carrying or exposing. Then there is the question of if this was in an examination room then is that considered a "public" place and that he intentionally displayed it. From my meager search of the legal meaning of public place it appears an examination room would fall under "personal matters" much like changing rooms or restrooms.

I don't know but either way it looks to be a case of the police getting a little ahead of themselves. I would hope more commonsense would prevail but then again....

Please shed more light on it if any comes available. I think this is very interesting and could be a "test case" depending how far it goes.

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Did they get him for passing the sign? Or possibly becuase his weapon was exposed?

Did he expose the gun intentionally?

Don't know. Would need to see the officer's report to determine why they charged him with UCW

Beiruty wrote:If the city lost the case, if the DA did not drop the charges, all legal fees should be reimbursed, no?

No. Thats not how the criminal justice system works.
Frankly thats not how our legal system works generally.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:If the city lost the case, if the DA did not drop the charges, all legal fees should be reimbursed, no?

No.

Should and will are two different things.

Keith B wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Did they get him for passing the sign? Or possibly becuase his weapon was exposed?

Did he expose the gun intentionally?

Don't know. Would need to see the officer's report to determine why they charged him with UCW

I bet it is because he passed the sign since they charged him with unlawfully carrying and they took him out to see the sign. If he intentionally displayed, I would think there is a different charge for that. If you get the officer's report, please share.

Unless he can prove he came in through the other door (video or some manner) I'd bet good money he loses if this is pursued.

However, I'd also bet the case is dropped-wait unless he hasn't actually been charged inwhich case I'd say he's never charged.

Interesting codicil. Say its dropped. how does he get his license back? Same to same if he's never even charged?

EDIT: I can't see the sign itself posted in the OP (work blocked for some reason). I'm assuming its a valid 30.06 sign