TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:...was so instructed by CHL instructor...

Unfortunately, your CHL instructor's opinion is not the law of the land. I hope that if you find yourself standing before a judge on this matter, you have a better defense than that. I think I would quote CHL-16 before I quote my CHL instructor.

This is no different than Grapevine MIlls Mall. Not all entrances are posted, but you WILL take a ride if you are caught with a weapon in there. Not saying that it's right, just saying that's the way it is.

Philosophically, I agree with the stance that the signs should be "in your face", and you MAY be able to beat the charge if arrested. How much time and money are you willing to spare to find out?

I wish the legislature would resolve this issue, but in the mean time I don't want to be the test case.

...I respect your choice of action...for yourself...but the law was written in many points to give CHL holders the benefit provided by specific wording...my instructor worked months hands-on to have the law worded exactly as it is worded...I wouldn't have to quote him in court...the text of the law is clear and must be followed completely by the business posting...just as the rest of the law is clear and must be followed by me completely...
...it is either the law or it isn't...philosophy doesn't count...opinion doesn't count...the judge will say "Did you comply with all points in the law?" "Did the business comply with all points in the law?" IF a business legally posts some of their publicly-accessed entrances and I go in those...I'm wrong....if they don't post some publicly-accessed entrances and I go in those...they're wrong and I have not broken the law...it's really simple...and it's the law...this is not a game to "get away" with something...it is strict compliance with expressed law...not the improperly expressed intentions...
...if you get ticketed at a cross intersection for running a 4-way stop sign...and there were only three directions with the sign up...and your direction had none...regardless of the state's intent...you're innocent...give the law what it requires...no "donations" necessary...that's the basis of our justice system...and the legislature HAS resolved the issue...by clearly, specifically detailing it in written law...for us and for the businesses...

speedsix wrote:...I respect your choice of action...for yourself...but the law was written in many points to give CHL holders the benefit provided by specific wording...my instructor worked months hands-on to have the law worded exactly as it is worded...I wouldn't have to quote him in court...the text of the law is clear and must be followed completely by the business posting...just as the rest of the law is clear and must be followed by me completely...
...it is either the law or it isn't...philosophy doesn't count...opinion doesn't count...the judge will say "Did you comply with all points in the law?" "Did the business comply with all points in the law?" IF a business legally posts some of their publicly-accessed entrances and I go in those...I'm wrong....if they don't post some publicly-accessed entrances and I go in those...they're wrong and I have not broken the law...it's really simple...and it's the law...this is not a game to "get away" with something...it is strict compliance with expressed law...not the improperly expressed intentions...
...if you get ticketed at a cross intersection for running a 4-way stop sign...and there were only three directions with the sign up...and your direction had none...regardless of the state's intent...you're innocent...give the law what it requires...no "donations" necessary...that's the basis of our justice system...and the legislature HAS resolved the issue...by clearly, specifically detailing it in written law...for us and for the businesses...

You are absolutely correct EXCEPT that ain't how it works.

If the laws and the legal systems were that cut and dried, every phone book in the country wouldn't have page after page of listings under the heading of "ATTORNEYS" nor would we see their smiling benificent faces on TV.

...I'm not interested in continuing to argue this...so this is my last post on this thread...

...the same law that condemns us...aquits us...it's worked pretty well throughout the history of the USA...is it perfect and does it happen as it is supposed to every time??? of course not...but that's the way we set it up and that's what we and they have to deal with...

...I won't tippy-toe through life worrying about the what-ifs...I read the rules, I live by them, I have a reasonable expectation that'll get me through...if a judge or jury doesn't go by the rules(written law)...I lose...but that can happen with anyone...anytime...they jail ...and release...innocent people all the time...

...where my 2A rights are concerned, specifically CHL-related behavior...I will obey the letter of the law very carefully...but won't volunteer anything...and if I am arrested while following the letter of the law...(very unlikely if I'm doing it correctly in the first place)...I'll rely on the courts and the jury...and maybe the overfed lawyer... to see that I'm exhonerated by the facts...I've spent a lot of years on both sides of the law...enforcing it and being a citizen living within it...and,so far,the justice system works pretty well...I won't live in the oh-but-what- if arena...I'm a free American...

What seems to be missed in the arguing it that the gun should remain concealed and if a CHL holder defends their life and/or the life of other innocents the thought of putting that person on trial for doing so will NOT be a pleasant one for anyone concerned. I don't think gun owners and others who support our rights will allow it to happen and if it does the public outcry will destroy anyone with authority that supports it. So, no matter what the law may or may not say, it is legal. A law that cannot be enforced is non-existent. Maybe that is blind faith in gun owners but I have seen it happen in cases (Joe Horn for one http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/01/e ... gilante-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) where much less debate has been had.

I do think EVERY entrance available for use MUST be Properly posted or no posting exists. Intent is meaningless in matters of LIFE and DEATH. That is just my opinion.

Dear SpeedSix.

If you are ever discovered carrying there, please let us know the outcome of your trial.

speedsix wrote:but the law was written in many points to give CHL holders the benefit provided by specific wording...my instructor worked months hands-on to have the law worded exactly as it is worded...I wouldn't have to quote him in court...the text of the law is clear and must be followed completely by the business posting...just as the rest of the law is clear and must be followed by me completely.

I am sorry if you feel this discussion is closed before I got to post, but I will post my thoughts for you to read and consider, as well as for others to consider.

You show a very good understanding of the law here, up to a point. The first part I would modify is that the law is written to give the CHL and the property owner each benefits by providing a specific wording of the law. But I do agree that the law is clear as it is written and must be followed by both you and the property owner.

And this is the real downfall in your logic. Not only does the law not require a sign at each door, but it specifically says there only has to be one sign on the property. Note the wording is that effective notice is provided if "A SIGN" is posted in a conspicuous fashion. If multiple signs were required the law would state if signs were posted. Theoretically, I could post the sign at the driveway entrance to the property and it would be valid, even for people who were walking and entered in the middle of the block.

A further point to consider is that the law does not even require that you specifically read the sign, or even saw it. It says the notice is provided if the sign is posted.

I honestly do not think the court would uphold the concept of a single sign posted somewhere on the property covering the whole thing, but I also do not think they would accept your concept of every door. A significant part of the case might be if you knew the signs were present at some doors and deliberately chose doors where they were not posted. If it is your first time someplace and you happen to use a door without a sign, you would stand a much better chance of winning a case than if you were a regular visitor.

I am not a lawyer and obviously a judge could disagree with me or with you. But my experience is that the police officers tend to be reasonable people and look at things in a reasonable fashion. If an officer knew you were deliberately trying to avoid the signs you knew of, I would think he would make the arrest if he found you had the weapon. I might not support people posting 30.06, but I support their having that right and that is how I would handle the case if I were the officer.