TexasCHLforum.com

comsec wrote:I went to both on Sunday and entered the Kimball on the upstairs glass doors facing to the west toward the Amon Carter and there were no signs visible.

Actually, the Kimball is off limits since they apparently do qualify for the "51%" law.(see my above posts) Regardless of whether a sign is posted or not, if this is true, you are breaking the law by carrying there.

S&W6946 wrote:Did you point out to him that the only firearms he was restricting were those being legally carried? He can restrict all he wants and not keep illegally carried firearms out. I don't understand the rationale behind that. Do really they think the bad guys will obey their signs? or do they even consider that?

There you go thinking again. If you keep that up, they're going to revoke your Liberal license and not allow you into the museum anymore.

txinvestigator wrote:In Texas, if a govt entity posts a 30.06 sign, the sign holds no force. If they search you and tell you that you cannot carry with the gun, then you cannot.

As of now, Texas does not make it illegal for the government to exclude carrying CHLers.

Where do you get this from, TXI? PC30.06 states:

PC30.06 wrote:(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

(Bold is, of course, mine.)

Since verbal notice is made effective by PC30.06, and the entire section of PC30.06 is excepted for CHL'ers as stated above by clause (e), then not even verbal notice is enforceable. If I am wrong, please show me where. Clause (e) (IMHO) means all of PC30.06 cannot be used on property owned or leased by a governmental entity

I think TXI is referring to 30.05 when he says that you cannot carry after being verbally told that they don't allow it. I don't think you can be charged with TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED, but I think you can still be charged with CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Is that what you meant TXI?
If not, then I would have to agree with barres here and say that clause (e) negates all of 30.06 while a CHLer is on govt property.

Except that 30.05 cannot be used to exclude a CHL holder solely because he/she is armed. I guess they could always claim that you were asked to leave for another reason, but the incident started with a confrontation over a legally carried weapon.

Okay, I went back and re-read PC30.05. You would have a defense to prosecution under PC30.05(f), but that wouldn't necessarily stop you from being arrested. The idea of this hacks me off to no end.

Not to go off on a tangent but please keep up this discussion. Reading it got me off my lazy tail to call our local DA's office and press the issue of removing 30.06 signs from our local county government center. Asst DA said he already spoke with our Sheriff but no action had yet been taken. Asst DA says he has another meeting with Sheriff this afternoon and will again bring the subject. I know for a fact nothing has been done. When I had business at the government center last week the signs were still there and the SO manning the metal detector still said CHL holders were not allowed in the building. Asst DA says both he and the elected DA agree CHL's have access to everywhere in the building except courtrooms and judges' offices but Sheriff has control of the building so what happens is his decision. At last weekend's local gun show shook hands and made cordial conversation with SO Lt that handles NFA sign-offs just to make certain things were smooth in the Sheriff's office. Not gonna stop till we win this one.

Yeah me too. This defense to prosecution stuff is stupid. If the officer has enough evidence to arrest you then obviously he thinks you have broken the law? On the flip side, if you will have a lawful defense, why make the arrest?

I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!


Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

Kau, you're right of course. What I meant to convey is the DA's office defers to the Sheriff's office on implementation of that policy.

kauboy wrote:I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!

The legal term for that is exception.

I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

- Jim

Arock, now I understand. So the DA just needs to push the elbow a little deeper into the Sheriff's side then, huh?

SeamusTX, your not kidding. In these instances, the law is only protecting the citizen:
1. If they can get a good lawyer to argue for the "defense to prosecution"
2. If they have enough money to drag through a long court battle
3. If they can do so from in jail or if they can afford the bail

Its completely unfair!

seamusTX wrote:I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

Your second sentence answers the first.

Making things defenses or presumptions, which still leave the citizen subject to arrest, is part of the philosophy of, "He needed arrestin', yer honor!" In other words, "I didn't catch him doing anything wrong, exactly, but if I can arrest him anyway and shake this tree hard enough, I know some nuts are gonna fall."

Selective enforcement is one of the more offensive parts of the law, and our laws are designed for, and beg for, enforcement to be selective.

Kevin

kauboy wrote:Yeah me too. This defense to prosecution stuff is stupid. If the officer has enough evidence to arrest you then obviously he thinks you have broken the law? On the flip side, if you will have a lawful defense, why make the arrest?

Because an officer arrest on Probable cause. It is your responsibility, and not the LEO's to determine your defense.

I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!

We have that concept now, its called non-applicability.

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

KBCraig wrote:

seamusTX wrote:I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

Your second sentence answers the first.

Making things defenses or presumptions, which still leave the citizen subject to arrest, is part of the philosophy of, "He needed arrestin', yer honor!" In other words, "I didn't catch him doing anything wrong, exactly, but if I can arrest him anyway and shake this tree hard enough, I know some nuts are gonna fall."

Selective enforcement is one of the more offensive parts of the law, and our laws are designed for, and beg for, enforcement to be selective.

Kevin

Again, not true at all. The legislators wrote the law, not the cops. Selective enforcement has nothing to do with it. If an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, then he arrests.

A defense to prosecution is where you ADMIT to the offense, but claim a legally justified defense. (think of it as judicial permission to break the law.) The police are not charged with determining the defense, the courts are.

barres wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:In Texas, if a govt entity posts a 30.06 sign, the sign holds no force. If they search you and tell you that you cannot carry with the gun, then you cannot.

As of now, Texas does not make it illegal for the government to exclude carrying CHLers.

Where do you get this from, TXI? PC30.06 states:

PC30.06 wrote:(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased
by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which
the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under
Section 46.03 or 46.035.

(Bold is, of course, mine.)

Since verbal notice is made effective by PC30.06, and the entire section of PC30.06 is excepted for CHL'ers as stated above by clause (e), then not even verbal notice is enforceable. If I am wrong, please show me where. Clause (e) (IMHO) means all of PC30.06 cannot be used on property owned or leased by a governmental entity

WHere there does it say of you receive verbal notice that you can ignore the person and walk on in. What do you do if they stop you?

Read the entire thread, I made a post that covers your specific question.

txinvestigator wrote:

kauboy wrote:Yeah me too. This defense to prosecution stuff is stupid. If the officer has enough evidence to arrest you then obviously he thinks you have broken the law? On the flip side, if you will have a lawful defense, why make the arrest?

Because an officer arrest on Probable cause. It is your responsibility, and not the LEO's to determine your defense.

So a LEO can arrest me because I don't fit the bill as an upstanding citizen, even though he has no evidence that I have committed a crime. That sounds fair.

I think a defense to prosecution should be changed to be a "defense to arrest". In other words NOT ILLEGAL!!!

We have that concept now, its called non-applicability.

My point was, all "defense to prosecution" clauses should be changed. Non-applicability simply means that it is not illegal in that particular case.

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

He said that the building is a "local county government center". I doubt its privately owned. A person inside the facility cannot overstep the law that the facility must follow. So I don't understand your "public entity" point.