TexasCHLforum.com

I agree with Jim and think Keith and his wife handled it the right and proper way.

TommyGlock wrote:I've wasted a lot of years trying to help stupid people not be stupid. It doesn't work.

Agreed. Some people have to walk behind the horse more than once, before they figure out that they will get kicked in the head when they do that.

Keith B wrote:My wife called me,all upset, and told me what the issue was. I called the state DPS office and asked for the person in charge of the DMV offices for the DPS. I reached a lady Captain almost immediately. I explained the situation, quoted the statute, and told her that her Sargent had committed a misdemeanor by refusing the entrance of the assistance animal. She apologized and said I would receive a call within 5 minutes from the Lieutenant. About 3 minutes later, he called me and apologized, and said it would be taken care of.

The supervisor committed a crime but I bet she wasn't charged. It reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm.

Ignoring the law...or arresting someone knowing that the arrestee did not break the law...is that not official oppression or some sort of federal civil liberties violation? How about just a threat of arrest as in Kieth's scenario?

False arrest is a violation of both state and federal law most of the time (PC § 39.03 in Texas). The problem is that to get damages, you have to hire a lawyer to take your case, get one to work on contingency, or get one to take it pro bono. If you were simply arrested and released in a short time, you are not going to get a lawyer to take it on contingency; the damages are too small.

You might get someone to take it pro bono if a significant legal principle is involved; but IMHO, that is unlikely to happen.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:Here's a good scenario about the DMV not following laws. Long story:

. . . I explained the situation, quoted the statute, and told her that her Sargent had committed a misdemeanor by refusing the entrance of the assistance animal.

I wonder if a search of public records would reveal if the LEOs involved were ever charged with the misdemeanors they committed, seems to me that, if they were that conscientious about enforcing the law, they would voluntarily charge themselves.

One thing that gets overlooked in this thread is that the owner, agent or any person with care, custody or controll of the premises can ask you to leave, failure to do so constitues trespassing with or without CHL. If he files the charge using the CHL code then you have defense to prosecution, if he files using the trespass code only, you may have an issue.

The owner or manager of a private facility can tell you to leave for any or no reason (except a few protected categories); and if you don't, it's trespassing.

That is not true of publicly owned facilities that are normally open to the public, like the example given, a DPS facility. They need a specific reason, such as bothering people or disrupting their business. (Of course, if you enter a secure area like a jail or port, that is trespassing.)

Please don't ask me to show the law that says this, because there isn't one. It's a principle based on case law. Your tax money paid for the place, and you have a right to be there.

- Jim

Russell wrote:You enter a government building that is posted with an unenforceable 30.06 sign. Say, for example, the DMV. You need to get your drivers license renewed.

The police officer/security guard in the corner notices you are carrying for one reason or another. He asks you to leave, and continues asking you to leave, even though you have showed him your CHL and attempted to explain to him that the 30.06 sign is unenforceable.

Wow, dumb enough to not conceal properly and then dumb enough to argue with a cop over legal semantics. Granted, your position on 30.06 would be correct in a gov building, but I have never heard of or seen a person argue legal semantics with a cop and win. The default for the cop is to let the courts sort is out and that is how things usually work out, be it with a speeding ticket or an arrest.

So why, in this scenario, is the cop arresting you for trespass and not citing you for the failure to conceal?

Double Naught Spy wrote:So why, in this scenario, is the cop arresting you for trespass and not citing you for the failure to conceal?

because you sat down and your shirt was caught on the arm and momentarily exposed your firearm, or any other method in which it way become unconcealed unintentionally, which are not illegal.

and to the original question posted, you would be arrested by the officer even though you LEGALLY did nothing wrong.

I would have to agree that it would be best to leave and contact the DPS office and have someone who actually knows the law meet you at the front door.

Or call Charles's office and have them contact the office and explain to them the sign is illegal.

flb_78 wrote:and to the original question posted, you would be arrested by the officer even though you LEGALLY did nothing wrong.

I would have to agree that it would be best to leave and contact the DPS office and have someone who actually knows the law meet you at the front door.

Or call Charles's office and have them contact the office and explain to them the sign is illegal.

So then they say, "Tough. Sue us."