TexasCHLforum.com

Rex B wrote:Further, if she did indeed leave a loaded firearm unattended in an area secured from same because of mentally unstable people having access, then she is not the sort of CHLer we need to support.

I agree with this in principle, but I believe we have to look at the bigger picture. Anti-gunners will use ever opportunity to take away our rights. The nurse may have done something stupid, but stupid isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it's in our best interest as a whole to be sure she doesn't become a negative statistic.

First, an employer may fire an employee for disregarding a notice that weapons are prohibited on premises, but how can a police officer arrest a person for violating a company policy? How can the Tarrant County DA's office determine that violation of an employee policy is an arrestable offense? The law is clear that exact wording is required for 30.06 signs, so unless the arrested employee was arrested for refusing to leave the property (criminal trespass) after being advised by management to leave then I don't understand what law she violated. Being in violation of a non-compliant 30.06 sign is not an arrestable offense under the law as long as the person leaves the premises when requested.

Second, why would any uniformed police officer disarm in public, on a call, while on duty? If I'm wearing a uniform (read: target for criminals) I would never be in public without all of my defensive weapons (primary handgun, backup handgun, etc.). This is not only stupid and dangerous, it may be against department policy and the officer is still responsible for his weapon that he relinquishes to hospital employees if his weapon is somehow accessed and used for a crime. Of course the hospital may legally forbid armed officers from entering the hospital without a warrant, but they cannot call 911 and then require officers to disarm - the officers would not be obligated to handle the call if they were forbidden access to the premises based on the officers being armed.

Am I missing something here? An employer doesn't have to give notice per 30.06. If they have it as part of their company policies, that serves as notice, especially if she had to sign a statement that she read, received and agrees to abide by the policies. Many companies policies also state that violating their policies can lead to arrest. (i.e. drugs, weapons, etc...)

She could have been given verbal notice by a supervisor and that would also be valid notice...
Or, am I missing something?

OldTxCop wrote:Am I missing something here? An employer doesn't have to give notice per 30.06. If they have it as part of their company policies, that serves as notice, especially if she had to sign a statement that she read, received and agrees to abide by the policies. Many companies policies also state that violating their policies can lead to arrest. (i.e. drugs, weapons, etc...)

She could have been given verbal notice by a supervisor and that would also be valid notice...
Or, am I missing something?

The only way to prosecute a CHL for trespass is by using TPC §30.06. §30.06 requires the use of specific language to do so, if notice is given in writing. If the writing is a sign, then it must not only use the statutorily-required language, it must also meet the physical requirements of §30.06.

If she was given verbal notice of a "go guns" policy, then she can be prosecuted under §30.06, as verbal notice does not require any specific language. As yet, I don't believe anyone knows what notice she received.

Chas.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

Rex B wrote:Further, if she did indeed leave a loaded firearm unattended in an area secured from same because of mentally unstable people having access, then she is not the sort of CHLer we need to support.

I agree with this in principle, but I believe we have to look at the bigger picture. Anti-gunners will use ever opportunity to take away our rights. The nurse may have done something stupid, but stupid isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it's in our best interest as a whole to be sure she doesn't become a negative statistic.

I will not support someone that I believe was wrong just to be "sure she doesnt become a negative statistic" thats just silly and supporting every fool with a CHL detracts from our argument.

We need to be reasonable and selective in our support and only then can we expect the opposition to be reasonable and selective too.

I dont care if the other side will or wont be reasonable and selective, I will do what I think is right not what my opponent is doing.

tallmike wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

Rex B wrote:Further, if she did indeed leave a loaded firearm unattended in an area secured from same because of mentally unstable people having access, then she is not the sort of CHLer we need to support.

I agree with this in principle, but I believe we have to look at the bigger picture. Anti-gunners will use ever opportunity to take away our rights. The nurse may have done something stupid, but stupid isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it's in our best interest as a whole to be sure she doesn't become a negative statistic.

I will not support someone that I believe was wrong just to be "sure she doesnt become a negative statistic" thats just silly and supporting every fool with a CHL detracts from our argument.

We need to be reasonable and selective in our support and only then can we expect the opposition to be reasonable and selective too.

I dont care if the other side will or wont be reasonable and selective, I will do what I think is right not what my opponent is doing.

tallmike wrote:

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

Rex B wrote:Further, if she did indeed leave a loaded firearm unattended in an area secured from same because of mentally unstable people having access, then she is not the sort of CHLer we need to support.

I agree with this in principle, but I believe we have to look at the bigger picture. Anti-gunners will use ever opportunity to take away our rights. The nurse may have done something stupid, but stupid isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it's in our best interest as a whole to be sure she doesn't become a negative statistic.

I will not support someone that I believe was wrong just to be "sure she doesnt become a negative statistic" thats just silly and supporting every fool with a CHL detracts from our argument.

We need to be reasonable and selective in our support and only then can we expect the opposition to be reasonable and selective too.

I dont care if the other side will or wont be reasonable and selective, I will do what I think is right not what my opponent is doing.

You can support her in the sense that (hypothetically) she did nothing illegal. Our rights as CHL holders are in question here. Anything she might have done that wasn't necessarily smart isn't relevant if it wasn't illegal. You can call her stupid all day long, but we need to separate the irresponsible from the illegal. She probably does deserve to be fired, sanctioned, or otherwise chastised by her employer for her actions. This is a completely separate issue from the legal questions.

Our lack of support for the legal issues because we believe she behaved irresponsibly (even though her actions were within the confines of the law) may result in a loss, and a legal precedent that could have far-reaching implications.

I just emailed the Chief again asking if he could clarify 30.06 wording, or if she received verbal notice.

I also invited him to join us here.

txinvestigator wrote:I just emailed the Chief again asking if he could clarify 30.06 wording, or if she received verbal notice.

I also invited him to join us here.

Good move. On both fronts. But I would be surprised if you get any further response.

txinvestigator wrote:I just emailed the Chief again asking if he could clarify 30.06 wording, or if she received verbal notice.

Is is proper for the Chief to comment on "an ongoing investigation"? That's what they always say on TV.

This is information that I haven't seen before. What is your source? Assuming this is correct, it doesn't look good for her. But I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.

Unless the report references a specific sign or "written communication" along with evidence that she was given such notice, we have no way of knowing if such a statement is true or not.

I don't think you would intentionally mislead, but I just can't put much stock in hearsay.

There is an easy way to solve this... has it gone to the DA yet? Anything been filed with the court? I checked, but my google-fu is weak today.

KBCraig wrote: Reports contain statements, not "facts". The report might only state what you said: "She was given proper written notice."

Unless the report references a specific sign or "written communication" along with evidence that she was given such notice, we have no way of knowing if such a statement is true or not.

Reports contain facts & statements made by victims, suspects and witnesses.

A fact is something that has occurred or is known to be true. Conclusions are opinions based on facts, and should not be in reports.

txinvestigator wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Reports contain statements, not "facts". The report might only state what you said: "She was given proper written notice."

Unless the report references a specific sign or "written communication" along with evidence that she was given such notice, we have no way of knowing if such a statement is true or not.

Reports contain facts & statements made by victims, suspects and witnesses.

A fact is something that has occurred or is known to be true. Conclusions are opinions based on facts, and should not be in reports.

I thought facts were not facts until a trier of facts (a jury) says it is a fact. This is at least what has been argued so vigoursly on this forum.