TexasCHLforum.com

I hate to say it guys, but the placement of the 30.06 sign requirement way down in subsection (i) wasn't a mistake or an oversight; it was a political necessity.

Chas.

Really!

Do you mean it was a necessity to keep the the rest of the section from getting amended to, or was there something else?

nitrogen wrote:Really!

Do you mean it was a necessity to keep the the rest of the section from getting amended to, or was there something else?

There was a very good chance it wouldn't have passed if we made it part of the prohibitive language itself. To be fair, I should note that it made good drafting sense to place it in a subsection, since not every "off-limits" location in TPC §46.035(b) was subject to the 30.06 notice requirements. Sometimes things that can be justified in terms of drafting sense are also politically "helpful." I probably should have kept my mouth shut on this one.

Chas.

Nintao wrote:When I took my class about 4 1/2 months back (from a Detective), he mentioned Churches as being off limits...

This is further confirmation of the general rule that one should never take legal advice from a LEO.

There are exceptions, such as the peace officers who post here, but they've proven that they know the law.

Nintao, in your case I'd suggest contacting the CHL instructor section of DPS, and reporting this particular bit of misinformation. I suggest this only because your instructor is a detective and should be held to a higher standard of professional knowledge.

KBCraig wrote: This is further confirmation of the general rule that one should never take legal advice from a LEO.

That is a little far fetched. Some LEO do not deal with certain parts of the Penal Code so give them a break. DPS does not deal with TABC task and TABC does not deal with DPS task very often. It is an unfair declaration made against LEO's. I know more CHL's that do not know the law than LEO's.