TexasCHLforum.com

handog wrote:I was suprised at how ignorant of the law they were. When the dust settled the judge agreed with me, not the LEO.

If the CA didn't prosecute then why did you even go to a judge to discuss the specifics of the case? You should've been magistrated and released.

marksiwel wrote:

handog wrote:I'm reluctant to give the jurisdiction here because a false arrest and civil liberties lawsuit is being considered.

more than likely a good idea. The less said the better.

If someone reported it I doubt you'll have much ground to stand on. Don't want to start a urinating contest but you'll have the burden of proof (albeit a lower one in civil court) to convince judge/jury of the officer's malicious intent.

And if he was following orders from a superior, then you may get something from the city/county...who knows. I'd have to ask what's your aim in bringing a suit and who would you be going after? Just curious. Glad everything worked for you.

I am only now reading about this.

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Sounds like a good time for sure! Glad it all worked out for you and I hope the department that LEO works for all have a nice big training day about CHL.

Congratulation on the good outcome to your problem. I would like to believe that those who server & protect us had a better grasp of the laws. It also is amazing how many guns had to be pointed at you considering you most likely were not making any threatening gestures. I can only hope that those involved in this incident get some training on the laws for the rest of our sakes. Again congratulations!

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:I was suprised at how ignorant of the law they were. When the dust settled the judge agreed with me, not the LEO.

If the CA didn't prosecute then why did you even go to a judge to discuss the specifics of the case? You should've been magistrated and released.

[/quote]

The case actually has to go to a judge to be dismissed since it has already been started in the court process during the arrest and magistration. In most cases, the prosecutor just hands the file to the judge with a motion to dismiss "nolle prosequi" (if I haev the Latin right). Sometimes, the court will want both sides present or the motion takes place at the first real adversarial hearing.

buffalo_speedway_tx wrote:It also is amazing how many guns had to be pointed at you considering you most likely were not making any threatening gestures.

It is easy to arm chair quarterback actions when we weren't the ones responding. And we don't know exactly what call was dispatched to the officers and what they could see from their approach.


Handog - did you get a copy of the officer's report or his Probable Cause statement?

srothstein wrote:The case actually has to go to a judge to be dismissed since it has already been started in the court process during the arrest and magistration. In most cases, the prosecutor just hands the file to the judge with a motion to dismiss "nolle prosequi" (if I haev the Latin right). Sometimes, the court will want both sides present or the motion takes place at the first real adversarial hearing.

Ah ok. This makes sense. Would the OP have to testify if the prosector motions to dismiss due to non-pros?

That scares the heck out of me. 40 years clean, law abiding citizen having multiple guns pointed at you and having to take the ride. Please tell me that the dismissal also voids the arrest and clears your record. I would double check if I were you. You don't deserve that following you around and you certainly don't need to explain it. How long were you in custody? i guess finding a good criminal defense attorney and a good civil attorney just got bumped up on my list of things to do. Is there a referral list that the NRA provides? Happy all ended well and I feel bad for you. Not right.

C-dub wrote:

chabouk wrote:

Keith B wrote:Government offices are not off limits unless they have a court, are holding a meeting and have posted a 30.06, or are the secured area of a police station (don't think I missed any.)

Even the secured area of the police station isn't statutorily off limits, it's just one area where they have the authority to disarm you. It's not required, but they have the authority to do so if they wish.

I don't understand. What makes the "secure" area of a police station different? It's still government property, isn't it? Wouldn't there have to be a government meeting in progress and a 30.06 sign posted to make it off limits?

It's not "off limits", but police have authority to disarm CHLs entering that secure area. If they don't disarm you, you're not committing a violation by entering while armed; it's not statutorily off limits, and can't be posted with a valid 30.06 notice.

Officers have always had the authority to temporarily disarm a CHL when they reasonably believed it was necessary for the safety of themselves, the licensee, or third parties. The authority to disarm a CHL entering the "secure area of a law enforcement facility" was added in 2007.

From Government Code 411:

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, if the law enforcement agency provides a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun. The peace officer shall secure the handgun in the locker and shall return the handgun to the license holder immediately after the license holder leaves the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility.

(c) A law enforcement facility shall prominently display at each entrance to a nonpublic, secure portion of the facility a sign that gives notice in both English and Spanish that, under this section, a peace officer may temporarily disarm a license holder when the license holder enters the nonpublic, secure portion of the facility. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height. The sign shall be displayed in a clearly visible and conspicuous manner.

(d) In this section:

(1) "Law enforcement facility" means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:

(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or

(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

(2) "Nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility" means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business of the law enforcement agency.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 572, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.

C-dub wrote:

chabouk wrote:

Keith B wrote:Government offices are not off limits unless they have a court, are holding a meeting and have posted a 30.06, or are the secured area of a police station (don't think I missed any.)

Even the secured area of the police station isn't statutorily off limits, it's just one area where they have the authority to disarm you. It's not required, but they have the authority to do so if they wish.

I don't understand. What makes the "secure" area of a police station different? It's still government property, isn't it? Wouldn't there have to be a government meeting in progress and a 30.06 sign posted to make it off limits?

chabouk is correct, they just have the authority to disarm you under 411.207 if the facility meets the guidelines and then they must provide lockers for your weapon. Didn't mean for it to read as the CHL statutes prohibited it. My bad for posting to little info.

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:I was suprised at how ignorant of the law they were. When the dust settled the judge agreed with me, not the LEO.

If the CA didn't prosecute then why did you even go to a judge to discuss the specifics of the case? You should've been magistrated and released.

marksiwel wrote:

handog wrote:I'm reluctant to give the jurisdiction here because a false arrest and civil liberties lawsuit is being considered.

more than likely a good idea. The less said the better.

If someone reported it I doubt you'll have much ground to stand on. Don't want to start a urinating contest but you'll have the burden of proof (albeit a lower one in civil court) to convince judge/jury of the officer's malicious intent.

And if he was following orders from a superior, then you may get something from the city/county...who knows. I'd have to ask what's your aim in bringing a suit and who would you be going after? Just curious. Glad everything worked for you.

I stood in front of a magistrate, not a judge. I stand corrected. My aim is mainly to bring awareness so that others won't go through it.

chabouk is correct, they just have the authority to disarm you under 411.207 if the facility meets the guidelines and then they must provide lockers for your weapon. Didn't mean for it to read as the CHL statutes prohibited it. My bad for posting to little info.

Okay. That kind of sounds reasonable.

Realistically, I think it would be extremely remote to find myself in this situation. However, I'm guessing that in order for a non-LEO to enter this non-secure area an I.D. would be required, which if one were carrying would also be accompanied by the CHL. At this time, I suppose they would disarm me and store my weapon. What if I'm being brought into this area by a friend, LEO that knows I have a CHL and could be armed, and I'm not asked for I.D.? If I'm carrying and not asked for I.D. do I have a duty to disarm? Sorry about the "if" questions. I know how messy they can be. I think the answer is in the statute in that it is not a requirement to disarm, but notes that we could be disarmed.

Oh, would we have the same right to request that an LEO disarm before entering my house? I'm probably going to regret that question, but oh well.

handog wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

handog wrote:I was suprised at how ignorant of the law they were. When the dust settled the judge agreed with me, not the LEO.

If the CA didn't prosecute then why did you even go to a judge to discuss the specifics of the case? You should've been magistrated and released.

marksiwel wrote:

handog wrote:I'm reluctant to give the jurisdiction here because a false arrest and civil liberties lawsuit is being considered.

more than likely a good idea. The less said the better.

If someone reported it I doubt you'll have much ground to stand on. Don't want to start a urinating contest but you'll have the burden of proof (albeit a lower one in civil court) to convince judge/jury of the officer's malicious intent.

And if he was following orders from a superior, then you may get something from the city/county...who knows. I'd have to ask what's your aim in bringing a suit and who would you be going after? Just curious. Glad everything worked for you.

I stood in front of a magistrate, not a judge. I stand corrected. My aim is mainly to bring awareness so that others won't go through it.

A judge is a magistrate, at any level. I was just curious why you even had to go to court on it if the CA was dropping the charges. Mr. Rothstein cleared it up for me. I didn't know they had to go in to ask the judge if they could choose not to prosecute. Seems like a pain but somebody somewhere decided that's how it should be.

Get your gun back yet?

Some police stations have holding cells and they don't want guns back there for obvious reasons.

C-dub wrote:I don't understand. What makes the "secure" area of a police station different?

Bart wrote:Some police stations have holding cells and they don't want guns back there for obvious reasons.

C-dub wrote:I don't understand. What makes the "secure" area of a police station different?

Pretty much, dont want some crazy grabbing your gun. I"m cool with disarming in very few circumstances. Planes, sure, Court Room, why not?, Sporting events , Schools , Voting places , a Prison or Prison type place? Sure.

was this reported in the newspaper where you are? I'd be interested how the media would report this.
Also, w/o naming the city...can you tell what "government office" this was? I mean was it a city water utility, courthouse, city hall, etc? I know there seems to be some disagreement as to whether a courthouse (but not the court itself) is offlimits.