TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

A sign doesn't oppress or restrict anyone, even if someone doesn't know it's invalid and complies.

If a policeman (under color of uniform) insists you do something or you will be arrested for something else (unlawfully), it's official opression. How is this any different. An authority is (falsely) claiming you will be arrested if you exercise your rights.

ScooterSissy wrote:If a policeman (under color of uniform) insists you do something or you will be arrested for something else (unlawfully), it's official opression. How is this any different. An authority is (falsely) claiming you will be arrested if you exercise your rights.

My reply was to your question which was only about a sign being posted.

In the case you're describing now, or the situation Puma Guy is asking about, it's obviously a different story and should be a problem for the PD.

puma guy wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

If any attorneys care to respond to the question above, also please consider that there are uniformed PPD officers enforcing 30.06 at the entrance of the Pasadena Convention Center. The last one I encountered there was quite arrogant and completely ignorant of the actual law. Didn't want to antagonize the situation by inquiring whether the city or venue was paying for the presence of the police.

Note the boldface part I marked. This is why it is not official oppression. Note the law (where I marked it in italics) requires the officer to know his conduct is unlawful. Your post is evidence that he did not commit the crime of official oppression.

As to the question as posed by Scootersissy, the answer is awfully close to the same thing. You have to prove both the knowledge of the unlawful conduct and the "intentional" part of the law. They may be both, but proving it in court is the hard part.

srothstein wrote:

puma guy wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I have a question for some of the lawyers on here.

When the government officials are aware these signs are not enforceable, and they post them anyway, why are they not guilty of Texas Penal Code - Section 39.03. Official Oppression?

§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION.
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

It would seem that a-2 would apply. They are certainly intentionally denying and impeding the exercise (and enjoyment) of one of our rights.

If any attorneys care to respond to the question above, also please consider that there are uniformed PPD officers enforcing 30.06 at the entrance of the Pasadena Convention Center. The last one I encountered there was quite arrogant and completely ignorant of the actual law. Didn't want to antagonize the situation by inquiring whether the city or venue was paying for the presence of the police.

Note the boldface part I marked. This is why it is not official oppression. Note the law (where I marked it in italics) requires the officer to know his conduct is unlawful. Your post is evidence that he did not commit the crime of official oppression.

As to the question as posed by Scootersissy, the answer is awfully close to the same thing. You have to prove both the knowledge of the unlawful conduct and the "intentional" part of the law. They may be both, but proving it in court is the hard part.

I agree it would be next to impossible the prosecute for official oppression. What is telling to me re: the PPD is it must come from the top. The City Attorney apparently got the message about posting 30.06 at the Police Department Building by finally removing it, but the city continues to flaunt the posting restictions for other buildings and now signs have appeared at the entrance of the PISD Admin and Tax office parking lot. Curiously the PISD building entrances themselves are not posted. City Hall has never been posted AFAIK and is only restricted when Council meetings are held. Unfortunately my fair city disregards many codes and laws, with extremley short caution lights and now there are 2 second green lights at major intersections. A good lawyer will make a lot of money when the accidents begin.
We have school zones reducing speeds from 45 to 20 MPH. If I recall that is more than allowed. I believe at 45 MPH posted the reduction can only a 15 or maybe 20 MPH reduction. I am all for slowing down for school zones and all that would have to be done is a properly spaced temporary speed reduction to 35 MPH, then a school zone sign. Sorry I hijacked. Any way I agree it would fail if prosecuted as official oppression.

The problem with official oppression as a state charge is that the local elected DA has to prosecute it.

Most of this garbage with bogus 30.06 postings is done by local government agencies. If the DA does not actually approve, he or she isn't going to make waves. At best he will tell the cops not to arrest, or to drop the charges.

That is why federal court is usually the place to go for relief from civil rights violations. But we know how sympathetic they are to RKBA issues.

You pretty much have to end up dead or with broken bones to get any relief from that system.

- Jim

Went to the gun show at the Port Arthur Civic Center this morning and it was 30.06 posted as I expected. I started to go in with my EDC, but decided not to be the test case in the very unlikely event it was detected. Does anyone know what would likely happen if caught carrying inside a 30.06 posted government building? There were several Port Arthur PO shopping at the show.
Dave

I saw this sign posted at the entrance to the Travis County Medical Examiner's office. It's the sign Travis County posts at the entrance of courthouses. Would the medical examiner's office be considered "offices utilized by the court," per PC Sec. 46.03(a)(3)? If so, which court? It seems to me that the ME's office would more likely be considered a "law enforcement facility" and that officers would simply have the right, per GC Sec. 411.207, to disarm a license holder before allowing the license holder into the secure portion of the building. Has anyone encountered this before? What are your thoughts on whether or not this is the proper signage for this building?

Douva wrote:I saw this sign posted at the entrance to the Travis County Medical Examiner's office. It's the sign Travis County posts at the entrance of courthouses. Would the medical examiner's office be considered "offices utilized by the court," per PC Sec. 46.03(a)(3)? If so, which court? It seems to me that the ME's office would more likely be considered a "law enforcement facility" and that officers would simply have the right, per GC Sec. 411.207, to disarm a license holder before allowing the license holder into the secure portion of the building. Has anyone encountered this before? What are your thoughts on whether or not this is the proper signage for this building?

Not a compliant 30.06 sign. And, unless it is a 'secured area' aka holding cell area usually, then they can't disarm you at a law enforcement office unless there is truly a court there.

The old Johnson County Courthouse had small signs 4 foot inside the glass doors on each level you can enter but they in no way meet the legal 30-06 law as stated by the state. They have also moved the courts to the Quinn Justice Center which is our old Cleburne High School. I play nice and follow it.

Glenn61 wrote:If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

Has anyone successfully sued a person/business/govt. agency for posting an illegal sign? It seems to me that lawsuits are the way to get people to wake up and stop doing something. Maybe the Texas Rifle Association could fund a lawsuit. One successful suit would bring down all these signs.

Ben

bentcursor wrote:Has anyone successfully sued a person/business/govt. agency for posting an illegal sign? It seems to me that lawsuits are the way to get people to wake up and stop doing something. Maybe the Texas Rifle Association could fund a lawsuit. One successful suit would bring down all these signs.

Ben

I'm not sure there is technically such a thing as an "illegal" sign. As far as I know, the law doesn't forbid anybody from posting a non-compliant sign, it just specifies the exact sign that must be posted for effective notice to be considered given as a matter of law.

If a private business has a "gunbuster" or non-compliant 30.06 sign, let it be. If you make a stink about it, they may well put up a compliant sign and then we're all screwed. And maybe the business owner knows the law and intentionally puts up a gunbuster knowing it's not compliant, thus allowing concealed carry but appeasing the anti's - the best of both worlds.

Now cities/counties doing it, that's a totally different story. This should be illegal if the building does not contain a court or any of the other stipulated exceptions, and there needs to be penalties imposed on the appropriate officials. I believe I read somewhere that Florida imposes a $5000 fine on any official that allows their version to be put up when it's not authorized. But as of now, as far as I know, Texas has no such prohibition or penalty, so there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. There should be, but there's not.

bentcursor wrote:Has anyone successfully sued a person/business/govt. agency for posting an illegal sign? It seems to me that lawsuits are the way to get people to wake up and stop doing something. Maybe the Texas Rifle Association could fund a lawsuit. One successful suit would bring down all these signs.

Injunctive relief would bring down one set of signs but I don't think it can be enforced against others who weren't party to the suit.

Scott Farkus wrote:Now cities/counties doing it, that's a totally different story. This should be illegal if the building does not contain a court or any of the other stipulated exceptions, and there needs to be penalties imposed on the appropriate officials. I believe I read somewhere that Florida imposes a $5000 fine on any official that allows their version to be put up when it's not authorized. But as of now, as far as I know, Texas has no such prohibition or penalty, so there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. There should be, but there's not.

You're right - individuals and businesses can put up any sign they want, but there should be a penalty for cities/counties that put up unauthorized signs in contravention of the law. So the first step would be to make those signs illegal.

bentcursor wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:Now cities/counties doing it, that's a totally different story. This should be illegal if the building does not contain a court or any of the other stipulated exceptions, and there needs to be penalties imposed on the appropriate officials. I believe I read somewhere that Florida imposes a $5000 fine on any official that allows their version to be put up when it's not authorized. But as of now, as far as I know, Texas has no such prohibition or penalty, so there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. There should be, but there's not.

You're right - individuals and businesses can put up any sign they want, but there should be a penalty for cities/counties that put up unauthorized signs in contravention of the law. So the first step would be to make those signs illegal.

Funny you should mention that.

Chas.

Chas, I take that to mean there is action being taken to curtail this type of activity?

And if so, will it include City owned property where Gun Shows are held?