TexasCHLforum.com

I would not carry past that sign. YMMV

goose wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:why do you think you would be taking a ride for a class C misdemeanor in the first place and not just written a ticket on the spot? Free ride to the station is not usually the norm for class C misdemeanors.

I think that it is a fair question. I would hope that the officer in question knows the laws and statutes. I also honestly don't know what all a person could be charged with depending on the officers disposition.

Is there a way to know if anyone in the state has even been ticketed? 06 or 07? I think you raise a good one.

Granted, someone can still fear being a test case. But if no one has been ticketed yet, or if no one has taken a ride............seems like a low threshold.

From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

ScottDLS wrote:

goose wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:why do you think you would be taking a ride for a class C misdemeanor in the first place and not just written a ticket on the spot? Free ride to the station is not usually the norm for class C misdemeanors.

I think that it is a fair question. I would hope that the officer in question knows the laws and statutes. I also honestly don't know what all a person could be charged with depending on the officers disposition.

Is there a way to know if anyone in the state has even been ticketed? 06 or 07? I think you raise a good one.

Granted, someone can still fear being a test case. But if no one has been ticketed yet, or if no one has taken a ride............seems like a low threshold.

From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

Speaking solely of CC / 30.06, I think the low likelihood of arrest stems from the fact that someone needs to see the "concealed" gun. That person then needs to call the police and the "perp" needs to still be there when the police arrive. Then the "perp" needs to actually be guilty of a crime, at least in the eyes of the LEO. Meaning that there was in fact a completely compliant sign, and that it is a place a sign can legally be placed. Or something else if the LEO is ignorant of the law.

This combination of factors seems pretty darn unlikely, IMHO.

ScottDLS wrote: From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

I don't remember reading about any arrests and acquittals, which I assume is part of your point. Locke_n_load's question sort of jarred that realization a bit deeper into my noggin. I would like to think that on average it means those of us that have been concealing, have actually been keeping it concealed.

But don't cops have some sort of Xray concealed gun vision ?

Soccerdad1995 wrote: On a side note, why are we so afraid of "taking a ride" on an invalid charge when there are a ton of government officials who are not afraid of being investigated by the AG for something that is actually against the law? In both cases, the potential for significant punishment is minimal, yet we are much more cautious and afraid than those in government. I think that says something about where we have gotten to as a nation. And it ain't good.

I can't speak for others, but as for me it's a simple question of resources - money, energy, time, etc. If I am involved in a legal proceeding at work (TDCJ), the agency will not only pay for my lawyer, court fees, and all other expenses, they will even count the time I spend in court as work time and pay me for it! As long as I am not found guilty of wrongdoing, they will support me financially and emotionally the whole way. I don't have to worry about losing my job due to time spent in court or a lawyers office, and I don't have to find a way to pay for said lawyer.

Meanwhile if I "take a ride," I am left to foot the bill. While I have a pre-paid legal service which will cover the lawyer and court fees, I am still going to burn through my vacation time while in court. Not to mention the emotional strain on me and my family - made worse by the knowledge that I am innocent but could still be convicted. It's not that there is no one brave enough to see if the law is what it claims to be, it's that there's no one willing to suffer, make their families suffer, drain their finances, and potentially be branded a criminal to do so. It's not fear, it's prudence.

imkopaka wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: On a side note, why are we so afraid of "taking a ride" on an invalid charge when there are a ton of government officials who are not afraid of being investigated by the AG for something that is actually against the law? In both cases, the potential for significant punishment is minimal, yet we are much more cautious and afraid than those in government. I think that says something about where we have gotten to as a nation. And it ain't good.

I can't speak for others, but as for me it's a simple question of resources - money, energy, time, etc. If I am involved in a legal proceeding at work (TDCJ), the agency will not only pay for my lawyer, court fees, and all other expenses, they will even count the time I spend in court as work time and pay me for it! As long as I am not found guilty of wrongdoing, they will support me financially and emotionally the whole way. I don't have to worry about losing my job due to time spent in court or a lawyers office, and I don't have to find a way to pay for said lawyer.

Meanwhile if I "take a ride," I am left to foot the bill. While I have a pre-paid legal service which will cover the lawyer and court fees, I am still going to burn through my vacation time while in court. Not to mention the emotional strain on me and my family - made worse by the knowledge that I am innocent but could still be convicted. It's not that there is no one brave enough to see if the law is what it claims to be, it's that there's no one willing to suffer, make their families suffer, drain their finances, and potentially be branded a criminal to do so. It's not fear, it's prudence.

Understood. But I still think that the reluctance (to try for a less charged word) is quite a bit overblown. We are, after all, talking about carrying past a non-compliant sign, which is not a crime.

Let's take the case of someone who chooses to carry past a non-compliant 30.06 sign, where there also is no compliant 30.07 sign*. First, someone needs to see the weapon, which should not happen (by definition). They then need to notify management of the store, which may well not happen (could assume you are a LEO, or they could not care less). Management then needs to call the police, instead of informing you. The police then need to respond before you leave. The LEO then needs to be ignorant of the law (I'm going to say that this is highly unlikely).

*I assumed that the 30.07 sign would also be non-compliant because it is highly unlikely that a store owner would get one right and one wrong, from what I have seen.

The probability that all of these do in fact occur is less than remote (to use an accounting term). And if you are unlucky enough to in fact have all of them occur, you will be given a $200 ticket which should easily be tossed out. I simply do not see the possibility for any of the dire consequences you mention in the part I bolded above. Sure, you might have to spend a few hours at a court room. Just like you will have to if you get a speeding ticket.

In fact, you are far more likely to be pulled over for a traffic infraction (which has the same type of potential penalty as a 30.06 / 30.07 violation, with the difference being that you have a higher likelihood of actually being guilty. Yet I don't think that we are afraid of driving our vehicles, like we are of carrying where we are legally allowed to do so.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:If you concealed and carried past it you wouldn't be breaking the law, since the sign doesn't meet the requirements as specified by statute. You risk getting wrongly ticketed if discovered, and having to argue your case to a municipal or JP court or pay the $200.

I wouldn't just pay the $200 as I wouldn't want any firearm related infraction on my record. But I don't think there would be much of an "argument" other than showing the judge a picture of the sign and the wording of the law. The bigger argument would be for the civil suit against the establishment's manager who filed a false police complaint that lead to you having to show up in court in the first place. That one might at least be a bit interesting.

That said, I would not carry past anything remotely resembling a 30.07 sign simply because there is a high likelihood of triggering effective verbal notice when management sees your weapon.

On a side note, why are we so afraid of "taking a ride" on an invalid charge when there are a ton of government officials who are not afraid of being investigated by the AG for something that is actually against the law? In both cases, the potential for significant punishment is minimal, yet we are much more cautious and afraid than those in government. I think that says something about where we have gotten to as a nation. And it ain't good.

Yes sir. It does go to show where & what the nation is heading & you said it right,, it ain't good.
my .02.

goose wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:why do you think you would be taking a ride for a class C misdemeanor in the first place and not just written a ticket on the spot? Free ride to the station is not usually the norm for class C misdemeanors.

I think that it is a fair question. I would hope that the officer in question knows the laws and statutes. I also honestly don't know what all a person could be charged with depending on the officers disposition.

Is there a way to know if anyone in the state has even been ticketed? 06 or 07? I think you raise a good one.

Granted, someone can still fear being a test case. But if no one has been ticketed yet, or if no one has taken a ride............seems like a low threshold.

WOW! That is a really good question! I bet some of these people here could find it!!

TreyHouston wrote:

goose wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:why do you think you would be taking a ride for a class C misdemeanor in the first place and not just written a ticket on the spot? Free ride to the station is not usually the norm for class C misdemeanors.

I think that it is a fair question. I would hope that the officer in question knows the laws and statutes. I also honestly don't know what all a person could be charged with depending on the officers disposition.

Is there a way to know if anyone in the state has even been ticketed? 06 or 07? I think you raise a good one.

Granted, someone can still fear being a test case. But if no one has been ticketed yet, or if no one has taken a ride............seems like a low threshold.

WOW! That is a really good question! I bet some of these people here could find it!!

ScottDLS already did. And I should have known where to look. Since I have it as a bookmark.
( https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... vrates.htm )

A big thank you to everyone in this thread. Especially Scott, Soccerdad, and Locke_n_load. I have been chewing on this fat over night. I am absolutely coming around on the thought that I need to be more confident in where I can carry. While my nature will always tend to lean towards not pressing the limits much, because I don't want to potentially jeopardize other facets of my life, this thread has made me reconsider where the limits might be. I think that I have been further away from "the edge" than I need to be. As others have said: I'm not likely to be seen if I am concealing well AND I'm not likely to be cited, regardless of the number of ways the sign is invalid.

ScottDLS wrote: From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

Well Scott, I'm not so sure that no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06. I would truly like to think that's the case, but I believe there's reason to believe that there could have been convictions, but that is not specifically defined as 30.06 violations.....but they could be.

Take for example, from the conviction rates for 2014(most recent statistics):

UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON - 1,867 total convictions; 14 convictions of CHL holders.

That's found on the last page of the DPS Conviction Rates Report of 2014.

I'm trying to think under what circumstances a CHL holder would be convicted defined as UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON, and the only thing I can think of is a violation and conviction under P.C. 30.06.

I wish the DPS report would state what statutes were violated that resulted in those 14 convictions. I tried searching for that answer but came up empty.

joe817 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

Well Scott, I'm not so sure that no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06. I would truly like to think that's the case, but I believe there's reason to believe that there could have been convictions, but that is not specifically defined as 30.06 violations.....but they could be.

Take for example, from the conviction rates for 2014(most recent statistics):

UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON - 1,867 total convictions; 14 convictions of CHL holders.

That's found on the last page of the DPS Conviction Rates Report of 2014.

I'm trying to think under what circumstances a CHL holder would be convicted defined as UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON, and the only thing I can think of is a violation and conviction under P.C. 30.06.

I wish the DPS report would state what statutes were violated that resulted in those 14 convictions. I tried searching for that answer but came up empty.

UCW is PC 46.02 and trespass is not an element of the statute. Per the statistics NO ONE has been convicted of 30.06. What got a CHL convicted of 46.02...? I don't know... The only thing I can think of is carrying without a CHL in your possession or while it was suspended. But nonetheless it's not a conviction for 30.06.

ScottDLS wrote: UCW is PC 46.02 and trespass is not an element of the statute. Per the statistics NO ONE has been convicted of 30.06. What got a CHL convicted of 46.02...? I don't know... The only thing I can think of is carrying without a CHL in your possession or while it was suspended. But nonetheless it's not a conviction for 30.06.

Ahhh, thank you. You are obviously more up to speed on the stats than I am. I'm learning here.

What statue does "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD" violate? There were 6 convictions in 2014. I wish DPS had a table that references statutes in their list of convictions.

Never mind. I answered my own questions. DUH! It's defined in 46.035. Looks like I'm a prime candidate for going back and reading again CHL-16.

In summation, I agree with you that per the stats no one has been convicted of violations of 30.06.

Im a new ltc guy. If this is the case why do most people here talk about "taking a ride" all the time? Honestly, I figured those six violations were because they forgot their gun was in their baggage at the airport. The airport guys are insanely strict!

ScottDLS wrote:

joe817 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: From reading the DPS CHL Convictions report it appears that from 1997 to 2014 (latest data), no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06... or under 30.05 in 1996. So I'm going with it's a pretty low likelihood of "taking the ride". Though theoretically there could be massive numbers of arrests of people that were all aquitted/charges dropped.

Well Scott, I'm not so sure that no one has EVER been convicted under 30.06. I would truly like to think that's the case, but I believe there's reason to believe that there could have been convictions, but that is not specifically defined as 30.06 violations.....but they could be.

Take for example, from the conviction rates for 2014(most recent statistics):

UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON - 1,867 total convictions; 14 convictions of CHL holders.

That's found on the last page of the DPS Conviction Rates Report of 2014.

I'm trying to think under what circumstances a CHL holder would be convicted defined as UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON, and the only thing I can think of is a violation and conviction under P.C. 30.06.

I wish the DPS report would state what statutes were violated that resulted in those 14 convictions. I tried searching for that answer but came up empty.

UCW is PC 46.02 and trespass is not an element of the statute. Per the statistics NO ONE has been convicted of 30.06. What got a CHL convicted of 46.02...? I don't know... The only thing I can think of is carrying without a CHL in your possession or while it was suspended. But nonetheless it's not a conviction for 30.06.

Perhaps the individual was OC before it was legal or had their gun visible in their vehicle.