Email legal notification to prohibit carry?

[seamusTX]

The point that I may be making myself a bore over is that these nuances of law don't matter on the street.

Someone, sooner or later, is going to get to make case law, and we all may be disappointed with the results, like with the guy who flashed in a road-rage incident whose name I can never remember.

You won't get a million bucks for being "falsely" arrested, either. False arrest requires actual malice or intentional wrongdoing by the arresting officer. The police and prosecutors get an unlimited number of mulligans.

- Jim

[bdickens]

Again, IANAL but, I am a CHL Instructor. I have to agree with purplehood. If the notice came from a person in authority then you've been notified don't carry. If your contact person is not someone in management then you may be OK. I'd like to hear what Charles thinks about this.

If those words were spoken verbally, then the OP would have "effective notice" pursuant to TPC §30.06. If the notice was given in written form such as an email, then the OP has not been given "effective notice" required by TPC §30.06.,

"Verbal notice" is the spoken work and only the spoken word, not an email. As for an arrest and legal fees, yes that can happen, but LEO's need to understand that no officer can make a good faith arrest for something that is not illegal. Doing so is a civil rights violation and a §1983 lawsuit could and should follow. An argument that TPC §30.06 is unclear will fail; it clearly states "language identical to the following . . ."

I'm not encouraging anyone to carry anywhere they feel uncomfortable. I just don't like to see "our people" giving up statutory protection that was intentionally put into TPC §30.06. It's clear as a bell and that's why there is no case law on the issue.

Chas.

Why do we keep having these discussions? I don't understand what is so hard to understand. Emails are written communications. Written communications must have the exact wording as specified in TPC §30.06 to be legally binding.

The OP was forwarded an email. That email did not conform to the requirements of TPC §30.06 and is therefore not legally binding. That should be the end of it.

Why do some people go on and on about "not wanting to be the test case" and all that when "It's [TPC §30.06.] clear as a bell and that's why there is no case law on the issue."

I'm going to go with the Attorney on this one. Particularly when he is the one who practically wrote that law in the first place.

[Oldgringo]

How do you send an e-mail to someone who doesn't have a computer?

[Hoi Polloi]

How do you send an e-mail to someone who doesn't have a computer?

It's easy enough. Much harder to send email to someone who doesn't have an email account.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The point that I may be making myself a bore over is that these nuances of law don't matter on the street.

Someone, sooner or later, is going to get to make case law, and we all may be disappointed with the results, like with the guy who flashed in a road-rage incident whose name I can never remember.

You won't get a million bucks for being "falsely" arrested, either. False arrest requires actual malice or intentional wrongdoing by the arresting officer. The police and prosecutors get an unlimited number of mulligans.

- Jim

Immunity from liability arises only when an officer makes a good faith arrest. A good faith arrest cannot be made for something that is not unlawful.

Chas.

[Kevinf2349]

Just to throw some fuel onto the fire...

http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynew ... 6736525985

...but, personally, I wouldn't want to have to argue the toss in court.

All things considered I, personally, would leave my little friend in the car park.

[Salty1]

Don't ask a question if you do not want to hear the answer. I am having a hard time understanding why anybody would even ask. If the building is not legally posted then carry. Now HR at that company is aware of this situation and they may just 30.06 the place now. By asking not only were you made aware of their policy but you may very well be the sole source for preventing others the ability to carry in the building. Remember HR is not about the employees, it is about protecting the company. Concealed is concealed, and need to know should be very high on your list.

[bdickens]

Salty1 wins the thread.

[VMI77]

Don't ask a question if you do not want to hear the answer. I am having a hard time understanding why anybody would even ask. If the building is not legally posted then carry. Now HR at that company is aware of this situation and they may just 30.06 the place now. By asking not only were you made aware of their policy but you may very well be the sole source for preventing others the ability to carry in the building. Remember HR is not about the employees, it is about protecting the company. Concealed is concealed, and need to know should be very high on your list.

I don't disagree. It was a mistake. It was supposed to be one CHLer asking another CHLer but didn't turn out that way. I asked someone who I know has a CHL, and had been to their offices, if they had a sign. He took it upon himself to call his contact there. I thought his contact had a CHL. I should have told him not to ask anyone who didn't have a CHL. It won't happen again.