Hobby Center?

[ELB]

I don't know of American Airlines Center lessees are posting or not. I don't think they are enforceable if they do post, but there isn't any case law on point. Unfortunately, someone would have to get arrested, convicted and then appeal to test my evaluation of the statute. The language is crystal clear so they should win, but it's an expensive trip through the system.

Chas.

To be absolutely correct, I do not know if AAC is postedwith 30.06 signs or not. I do know, from first hand experiences posted on this forum, that they claim -- no, they have -- the right to deny entrance to CHL holders who have concealed handguns, regardless of the fact that the property is city government owned. One member here posted correspondence with them where they basically said that regardless of the law, they can make their own "house rules" (their term) and that is that.

As far as I know this situation has gone unchallenged, so the practical effect is that people who lease or rent government facilities can in fact ban CHL carry; there is no effective legal impediment to that; the part of the law you cited as crystal clear (and I agree it is) has no genuine practical meaning because no individual CHL holder can afford to do what it takes to force AAC, or any other entity, to follow it.

I know the NRA and TSRA probably want to focus its limited legal resources on cases like the 2A incorporation cases, where truly foundational changes can be made. But it doesn't seem like a huge effort would be required to enlist support from some CHLs who would like to attend AAC for an event, have some smart lawyer guys draft a letter to the AAC operators, line up whatever other support we can (AG? touch base with local DAs on their view as to what they would really support AAC on?) and put some formal pressure on the operators of AAC. As others have pointed out, we got the State Fair sorted out.

You once wrote (in a previous post about the AAC situation):

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Oct 12th, '07, 10:56
As a very general statement, if I'm given a choice as to how I want to correct a problem, my first choice would be legislation, then a court challenge, then an AG Opinion. We have far more control over a bill in the legislative process than we do a judge or an attorney working in the AG's office and writing the opinion.
Chas.

Well, quite frankly the legislative route didn't do a lot for us this time. I am grateful for the changes that were made, but our flagship bills got shot down. And of course, nothing happened that changes a private entity's ability to bar CHL holders from government owned property. It is two years until the next legislature. We do have one of, if not the, most pro-2A Governors and Attorneys General in the nation -- maybe there are some other routes that should be explored to advance the 2A in general and CHL carry in particular.

I am guessing that the soon-to-be wave of denial appeals in all the local courts is going to suck up all of your time and energy (and I assume that of some other attorneys as well?) -- that is clearly an important project, and should be vigorously executed. And allowing private entities to exercise powers over government property that the government itself can't do isn't so high on the priority list of things to fix... but it sure is galling.

[boomerang]

To be absolutely correct, I do not know if AAC is postedwith 30.06 signs or not. I do know, from first hand experiences posted on this forum, that they claim -- no, they have -- the right to deny entrance to CHL holders who have concealed handguns, regardless of the fact that the property is city government owned. One member here posted correspondence with them where they basically said that regardless of the law, they can make their own "house rules" (their term) and that is that.

Exactly. Their house rules are just that. House rules. Someone with a CHL doesn't seem to be violating the 30.06 law (or any other laws) by ignoring the signs and carrying there.

I personally vote with my feet. I try to respect their wishes and spend my money somewhere else. But sometimes social obligations interfere and then I walk past invalid 30.06 signs with a clear conscience. Also from a practical standpoint, unless they have metal detectors concealed means concealed.

[Charles L. Cotton]

ELB, the problem with a court challenge is someone has to be arrested, go to trial and get convicted. Only then can you get it into the appellate courts.

Chas.

[ELB]

ELB, the problem with a court challenge is someone has to be arrested, go to trial and get convicted. Only then can you get it into the appellate courts.

Chas.

Yes I understand. Or at least as I understand it, it would take and arrest and a conviction and an successful appeal to establish a precedent? That's (part of) the reason I am saying that "the law' as practiced, that is, in reality, permits armed CHL holders to be kept off of government-owned property, regardless of the "clarity" of the law.

However, are there is nothing short of crashing the gates and getting arrested that can be done?

[howdy]

This whole section (e) might have been added when Houston said concealed carry was not allowed on city buses. I know there was a big fuss over it. Now, I want to get this straight. All these government entities (city, county, state, etc) that are posting these 30.06 signs on their property are wrong and little 'ol us is right? Did I get this correct? The multitude of city, county government agencies has gotten the law all wrong and we haven't. The lawyers that they employ just overlook the law and do as they please and there has not been one court case that anyone here can reference saying they are wrong. The people posting on this site would feel comfortable packing in a police station with a 30.06 sign posted on the entrance door. We actually have instructors telling their students to IGNORE a 30.06 sign if they believe that the property is owned by a governmental agency. Keep this up guys......you may kill the proverbial goose. Does anyone doubt that the largest conviction rate for CHL holders is for unlawful carrying of a weapon? I know what some people are saying "if it is concealed, no one will know". I say, "if you are not interested in obeying the law, why get a CHL" I have carried since CHL was made legal in Texas. I have not once been asked by a LEO if I was carrying. I could have saved all that time and money and just carried without a license. Better "judged by 12 than carried by 6". Or is that the point here. We are law abiding citizens and we want to stay that way. Avoid the grey zones and keep yourself out of trouble.

Mr. Cotton say:
"I don't know of American Airlines Center lessees are posting or not. I don't think they are enforceable if they do post, but there isn't any case law on point. Unfortunately, someone would have to get arrested, convicted and then appeal to test my evaluation of the statute. The language is crystal clear so they should win, but it's an expensive trip through the system."

Why would they get convicted if they should win. Obviously other lawyers (DA, trial Judge ) and jury would have to disagree with your interpretation of section (e) to get convicted. You might win on appeal, but you might end up with a class A, jail time, lose your job.....I again would find it totally irresponsible for a CHL instructor to tell his students to do something that might get them arrested and put in jail.

Totally frustrated said he would just dump the magazines and let them zip tie his handgun just in case something went down. So you are going to unload in your car, carry an empty gun to the gun show, carry an empty gun around the show and then carry an empty gun back to your car. When do you expect to have to use your gun, in the show? I suggest in this situation, you find the safest place to hide to avoid the slaughter. Once the first shot is fired, no one will know good guy from bad guy and everyone holding a gun will be a target. This is why the military and police wear uniforms so they can sort out the targets.

I don't claim to have all the answers and I tell my students such. I was a Marine Officer and a Federal LEO before retirement and I have been involved in concealed carry for many years. I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, NRA member, apple pie eater and all around decent guy that just happens to carry a gun all the time. I would feel absolutely naked without my Glock. I hope you feel the same. Stay out of the grey.

[boomerang]

Why would they get convicted if they should win.

The same reasons some government officials tried to prevent freedmen from voting 130 years ago.

[dicion]

A Few replies to your post:

This whole section (e) might have been added when Houston said concealed carry was not allowed on city buses. I know there was a big fuss over it. Now, I want to get this straight. All these
government entities (city, county, state, etc) that are posting these 30.06 signs on their property are wrong and little 'ol us is right? Did I get this correct? The multitude of city, county government agencies has gotten the law all wrong and we haven't. The lawyers that they employ just overlook the law and do as they please and there has not been one court case that anyone here can reference saying they are wrong.

Yes. Exactly.
Look at another example. the DPS has lawyers too, however, they seem to have no problems violating the law in regard to issue times.
In my experience, Government seems to have this view that 'laws are for the citizens to follow, not us', which is dead wrong.

The people posting on this site would feel comfortable packing in a police station with a 30.06 sign posted on the entrance door. We actually have instructors telling their students to IGNORE a 30.06 sign if they believe that the property is owned by a governmental agency. Keep this up guys......you may kill the proverbial goose. Does anyone doubt that the largest conviction rate for CHL holders is for unlawful carrying of a weapon? I know what some people are saying "if it is concealed, no one will know". I say, "if you are not interested in obeying the law, why get a CHL"

I am very interested in obeying the law. The law specifically states, in black and white, in no uncertain terms, that Government owned or leased property CANNOT be posted. So I obey the law by ignoring the illegal sign.

Why would they get convicted if they should win. Obviously other lawyers (DA, trial Judge ) and jury would have to disagree with your interpretation of section (e) to get convicted. You might win on appeal, but you might end up with a class A, jail time, lose your job.....I again would find it totally irresponsible for a CHL instructor to tell his students to do something that might get them arrested and put in jail.

Because a not guilty verdict in a local court does not set a precedent. In order for 'trial law' to be set, it has to be done in an appeals court. So, to get to the appeals court to set trial law, means you have to be convicted locally first. It sucks, but that's how it works.

Stay out of the grey.

Unless some people do go into the grey, it will never be relegated black or white.

[SlowDave]

Why would they get convicted if they should win.

And therein lies the problem. They almost surely would NOT get convicted, they would be released, maybe even no-billed (not charged) by the DA or grand jury or whatever. That would solve their immediate problem (at a loss of some cash) but would not, as I understand set a precedent. So it's unlikely to ever get a hard solution/answer to these situations.

Can some lawyer-type tell me (in english preferably) why someone having charges dropped or being found not guilty in the original court case is not a precedent? To my simple non-lawyer mind, it seems the next guy could reference that type of case as a precedent. Or is it something about chain of command of the court system, and you can't be "precedented" by a fellow court, it has to be a more superior court?

Also, it's fine to stay completely out of the gray areas, but that would really require not carrying a weapon, driving a car, or otherwise participating in society. If we define gray areas as areas where the law is 99% clear, but there is not a case law precedent, then our lives are in the gray area. You can stay out of them as long as you are willing to give up nearly every right that the people of this country have fought and died for. That's unacceptable to me. Everyone choses their gray area tolerance. I figure if others have fought and died for this stuff, I can chance a ride and in some cases, a possible court trial to push back on gov't encroachment of my rights. But that's just me.

The law says that 30.06 is invalid on gov't owned or leased property. That's good enough for me. City lawyers who ignore this (or who oftentimes I bet are not consulted before some local bureaucrat flunky posts the sign) not withstanding, I'll go there. You can call me brash and risking CHL laws across the land if you like. I'll hope if I ever go in deep on one of these (almost 0 chance of that), I'll have the majority of folks like those on the forum here picketing in the streets during my trial. If not, that's okay as well.

My $.02.

[srothstein]

All these government entities (city, county, state, etc) that are posting these 30.06 signs on their property are wrong and little 'ol us is right? Did I get this correct? The multitude of city, county government agencies has gotten the law all wrong and we haven't. The lawyers that they employ just overlook the law and do as they please and there has not been one court case that anyone here can reference saying they are wrong.

Yes, you have this correct. The cities and governmental agencies are ignoring the law. Given our government and the way it has been going in recent years, does this really surprise you? If all branches of the government always obeyed the law, would we need a Supreme Court to hear Constitutional challenges?

And one of the reasons there may not be a court case showing we are right may be because either police don't arrest or district attorneys don't accept the case when the sign is wrong. If the case is never prosecuted, there is no case record showing either way. Not many D.A.'s will take a case they know they will lose.

The people posting on this site would feel comfortable packing in a police station with a 30.06 sign posted on the entrance door. We actually have instructors telling their students to IGNORE a 30.06 sign if they believe that the property is owned by a governmental agency. Keep this up guys......you may kill the proverbial goose. Does anyone doubt that the largest conviction rate for CHL holders is for unlawful carrying of a weapon?

Actually, we do not know what the conviction rates are for CHL's (as a percentage of arrests). We know the largest single number of convictions was for unlawfully carrying (29 in 2007) but we don't know the rate. And, I truly do not understand how any CHL can be convicted of unlawfully carrying unless he was carrying a semi-auto while he had a revolver license. Anything else should be a different charge, such as unlawfully carrying by a CHL. Carrying past a valid 30.06 sign is Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun, and the DPS statistics do not show a single conviction. oddly enough, they don't show a lot of offenses that there must have been convictions for, so i am not sure how good these statistics are for anything.

But for a CHL to be convicted of unlawfully carrying a weapon shows problems in our criminal justice or reporting systems and does not show anything about what the people actually did.

I know what some people are saying "if it is concealed, no one will know". I say, "if you are not interested in obeying the law, why get a CHL"

But we are interested in obeying the law. And since the law clearly says the sign is not valid, we are obeying the law if we ignore the sign. That is the whole point. We want the cities and other governmental agencies to also obey the law.

Mr. Cotton say:
"I don't know of American Airlines Center lessees are posting or not. I don't think they are enforceable if they do post, but there isn't any case law on point. Unfortunately, someone would have to get arrested, convicted and then appeal to test my evaluation of the statute. The language is crystal clear so they should win, but it's an expensive trip through the system."

Why would they get convicted if they should win.

I believe you misunderstood Mr. Cotton's comments. He was not syaing they should be convicted, but that to get a court case set as precedent would require a conviction. As I said, this may be one of the reasons we have no court cases to cite. If there is never a conviction that is appealed, we have no legal precedent.

Obviously other lawyers (DA, trial Judge ) and jury would have to disagree with your interpretation of section (e) to get convicted. You might win on appeal, but you might end up with a class A, jail time, lose your job.....I again would find it totally irresponsible for a CHL instructor to tell his students to do something that might get them arrested and put in jail.

I have never yet heard any instructor advise a student to break the law. I have always heard, and seen on this site many times, the same advice you have posted. Stay out of the gray areas and do not be a test case. But telling a person that they may shoot to defend themselves, and explaining exactly when according to Chapter 9 is telling them that they can do something which could get them arrested and put in jail. Most of the instructors I know of have told their students to expect to go to jail if they are involved in a shooting, but to expect to win if they obeyed the law. they might not go to jail, but they will be dealing with the police anyway. How does telling them the law on where they can carry differ from this?

Totally frustrated said he would just dump the magazines and let them zip tie his handgun just in case something went down. So you are going to unload in your car, carry an empty gun to the gun show, carry an empty gun around the show and then carry an empty gun back to your car. When do you expect to have to use your gun, in the show? I suggest in this situation, you find the safest place to hide to avoid the slaughter. Once the first shot is fired, no one will know good guy from bad guy and everyone holding a gun will be a target. This is why the military and police wear uniforms so they can sort out the targets.

I honestly hope you do not truly believe this. This is one of the arguments we hear from anti-gunners all of the time. As a cop and former soldier, I can tell you that I can identify the bad guys when I arrive on the scene. As a cop, I do something the military does not do and demand they surrender first. When I yell for them to drop their weapon and get on the floor, the good guys obey and the bad guys don't. And if I am not sure who is the bad guy, I don't shoot until I am sure. I may handcuff a good guy while I am sorting things out, and may even arrest them until we have all the details, but I certainly will not storm in there shooting anyone not in a uniform. Behavior and attitudes like that might be why so many federal agencies (and even state and municipal agencies) have such a poor reputation with the public and other cops. We are here to help the people, not just to arrest everyone. Of course, this is also one of the reasons I fight the militarization of the police so much. We are not the military and we should not act like it.

I don't claim to have all the answers and I tell my students such. I was a Marine Officer and a Federal LEO before retirement and I have been involved in concealed carry for many years. I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, NRA member, apple pie eater and all around decent guy that just happens to carry a gun all the time. I would feel absolutely naked without my Glock. I hope you feel the same. Stay out of the grey.

This part we seem to agree on. I am a police officer, a veteran, a staunch supporter of this country and the Constitution (the whole thing, but especially the Second Amendment). I also feel naked when I am not armed (well, I prefer a 1911 to a Glock but YMMV). And I also advise everyone to stay out of the gray areas of the law. As has been said here before by many, those on the cutting edge of the law usually end up bleeding.

[srothstein]

Can some lawyer-type tell me (in english preferably) why someone having charges dropped or being found not guilty in the original court case is not a precedent? To my simple non-lawyer mind, it seems the next guy could reference that type of case as a precedent. Or is it something about chain of command of the court system, and you can't be "precedented" by a fellow court, it has to be a more superior court?

Not a lawyer type, but I will take a stab at it. First, no case can set a precedent if it is not properly tried. We cannot draw any conclusions from why a charge was dropped or case not prosecuted. It could be no law was broken. It could be a lack of evidence. It could be the DA knows the jury will nullify that law for that case. And it oculd be politics (money, power, etc.). So, unless there is a trial, nothing counts.

In trials, a ruling is only binding on the court itself and courts inferior to it within its jurisdiction. Even then, the rulings are not really binding per se on the court that made them. There is a principle of law known as stare decisis that says the court should use the prior cases as valid interpretations, but the court can overturn itself.

But a district court has no lower courts that the case would be binding on. A district court of appeals can make rules only for its district. A state Supreme Court (or Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas) makes rules binding in that state.

The real key is understanding what is precedent. If the Court of Criminal Appeals makes a ruling, it applies to all district courts and appellate circuit courts in Texas. This sets a precedent that must be obeyed. But if a circuit court (say the State Circuit Court of Appeals in San Antonio) makes a ruling, it must be obeyed in their circuit. Other circuits do not have to obey it, but the case can be cited in those circuits to help the judges there make their decision. They may agree with the interpretation or they may disagree and come up with their own.

If there is a disagreement between the circuits, usually one of the cases will be accepted by the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals so there will be a uniform application of the law throughout the jurisdiction.

These same rules apply at the federal level. This is why the NRA case against Chicago is likely to get to the SCOTUS. The 9th Circuit (California) has ruled the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states. The 2nd (?) Circuit in Illinois has ruled just the opposite. To get a uniform application of the law in the US, the Supreme Court must now decide on incorporation. They may wait until a few more circuits weigh in, but they should try to clarify it now. I think the conservative justices will vote to hear the case now but there is no guarantee either way.

[howdy]

This is a great discussion, and not one person has called me an jerk (at least not in writting.) I am playing the devils advocate here. I KNOW what the law says but I also know reality. There were many comments and I will respond to each one as I get the time. I tell my students that there are a lot of grey areas in the law. I tell them up front that I might not be able to answer all of their "what if" questions? (look at Lawyers, they have many times the legal education and they waffle alot) I have shown them this section and received much discussion on this topic. I have had attorneys in my class that express their views in ALL directions. Everyone has to pick their "line in the sand" against government encroachment, but this is a topic for another post.

I am going to instructor re-qual this summer. I will ask the DPS attorney her opinion of section (e) and I am sure it will bring up a lively debate in the class. (the DPS lawyer tends to interpret more towards "no you can't") She should be able to supply arrest and conviction data for arrests associated with carry on government posted property. I also plan to talk to other instuctor types that I know to see what they teach.

As a side note. I went to the Hobby Center yesterday for the 2 pm matinee of Phantom of the Opera. The 30.06 sign is very easy to see and is on all public doors except possibly one. (I didn't get around to this one.) There is a resturant attached to the Hobby Center and you can enter the Hobby Center from an inside door from the resturant. There is NO 30.06 sign on the door leading to the Hobby Center. I did not check the resturant door to the street. This resturant is open all the time and they only unlock the inner door to the theatre when events are happening on the inside. They have a worker taking tickets there so you can't just walk in. The Mills Mall in Katy is also posted 30.06 at all main doors, but there are many side doors to the inside that are not marked (Bass Pro Shop). They all have security cameras that will prove you entered in an unmarked door.

[Keith B]

Katy Mills posting is valid and enforceable, Hobby Center is not IMO.

However, let's look at your scenario of not all entrances posted. There have been many discussions on the forum concerning this. If the facility is validly posted with a 30.06 anywhere, then your knowledge of the posting is all that is required to be valid. Just entering via different entrance does not exempt you from the restriction since you know the building is posted. The only way you would not be in violation is if you entered a non-posted entrance and were unaware of any other entrances being validly posted.

[frreed]

Wow,

I posted this, didn't get back to the website for a couple days and found a roaring, but well mannered, conflagration. We are going down to see Phantom next Thursday evening. I'll just secure the pistol in the car to be on the safe side. I would prefer not to be a test case as part of my family vacation.

Thanks for the input and you are welcome for my inciting a riot...err I mean a great discussion. This site is great fun and a tremendous source of information.

[howdy]

Keith B.

Your point is understood about knowledge of the posting but a discussion on this forum does not make it fact. It would be up to the arresting officer/court to PROVE you knew of the other postings. I would simply explain to the Officer that the door I came in was not posted and agree to take my handgun out to my car. But again, I do not carry at the Hobby Center because I think many people disagree with your interpretation of section (e). The restaurant in question is on the second floor and the main entrances to the Hobby Center are on the first floor (with 30.06 posting) I do not know if the entrance to the restaurant is posted. Maybe frreed could check that door when he goes there and report back.

Little off subject: frreed: This is a GREAT production of Phantom. Park behind the Hobby Center. Get there early, (5:30 should have most of the worker crowd out) and go to one of the several good cafes close by. I have not seen a 30.06 or 51% sign at any of them. You walk right past the garage on the way back to the Center. Just return your handgun to your car and walk the short distance to the play. I feel safe there....lots of Police standing around.

[Keith B]

Keith B.

Your point is understood about knowledge of the posting but a discussion on this forum does not make it fact. It would be up to the arresting officer/court to PROVE you knew of the other postings. I would simply explain to the Officer that the door I came in was not posted and agree to take my handgun out to my car. But again, I do not carry at the Hobby Center because I think many people disagree with your interpretation of section (e). The restaurant in question is on the second floor and the main entrances to the Hobby Center are on the first floor (with 30.06 posting) I do not know if the entrance to the restaurant is posted. Maybe frreed could check that door when he goes there and report back.

Little off subject: frreed: This is a GREAT production of Phantom. Park behind the Hobby Center. Get there early, (5:30 should have most of the worker crowd out) and go to one of the several good cafes close by. I have not seen a 30.06 or 51% sign at any of them. You walk right past the garage on the way back to the Center. Just return your handgun to your car and walk the short distance to the play. I feel safe there....lots of Police standing around.

The burden of proof is always on the DA/Grand Jury to make the call on pursuing prosecution. However, not picking nits, the law states what it states. Laws that are not totally spelled out in black and white are always open to interpretation.

The discussions on this forum DO have experts on these matters. Two of them have posted in this thread. I explicitly trust and agree with their views on these interpretations. The reason being, one is a lawyer that has been heavily involved for 10 years with trying to get the CHL process established in Texas before he was able to help get it pushed into law. The other is a Law Enforcement instructor who daily deals with teaching the laws and is well versed in their interpretation and application.

Bottom line, if you feel compelled to carry in an area that you know is off limits, then that is your choice. That goes for carrying past any 30.06 sign, valid or or not. It will ultimately be your $$$ that go to the lawyer if you are found and the DA/Grand Jury decide to push the issue.