TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:There's about the same chance of getting successfully prosecuted for something for which you have statutory defense as there is for you to be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. I'm not saying it can't happen, and in each case you'll have to pay for your defense, but I'm not going to limit my activities based on something that might happen.

The same type of ignoramus who ignores 30.06 (c) (3) could just as easily do the same for 46.15 (b)

or 46.15 (a)

austinrealtor wrote:

chabouk wrote:PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

ScottDLS did a great job of explaining (and like him, I don't let the possibility stop me from carrying).

In a perfect storm of bad prosecutor, bad defense attorney, bad judge, bad jury, and your own ill-advised statements, yes: I believe you could be convicted.

Police question: "So, did you see the big red 'NO GUNS' signs on the doors?"
Wrong answer: "Yeah, but they don't apply to me."
Right answer: "I want to talk to my lawyer before answering any questions."

chabouk wrote: Police question: "So, did you see the big red 'NO GUNS' signs on the doors?"
Wrong answer: "Yeah, but they don't apply to me."
Right answer: "I want to talk to my lawyer before answering any questions."

Ohhh -- That's bad!

Kinetic wrote:If A CHL holder is prudent, he would not be getting a verbal or written notice because they would not know you had a concealed firearm.

This is very true, but we have a large number of CHLers who are concerned with X-ray vision.

chabouk wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

chabouk wrote:PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

ScottDLS did a great job of explaining (and like him, I don't let the possibility stop me from carrying).

In a perfect storm of bad prosecutor, bad defense attorney, bad judge, bad jury, and your own ill-advised statements, yes: I believe you could be convicted.

Police question: "So, did you see the big red 'NO GUNS' signs on the doors?"
Wrong answer: "Yeah, but they don't apply to me."
Right answer: "I want to talk to my lawyer before answering any questions."

One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Best answer: "I didn't tell them, exactly. More like it was kind of obvious when I shot the armed robber."

chabouk wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Best answer: "I didn't tell them, exactly. More like it was kind of obvious when I shot the armed robber."

Exactly...and in a situation like that, who cares what kind of sign they had? Sure beats being found dead, right beside the non-compliant sign with no gun. I have no desire to die and then have everyone say..."If only he had his weapon... and gosh, he didn't even have to disarmed... what a great upstanding guy he was"!

The real point I was trying to make is that unless a person is seriously lacking in their manner of concealed carry, these issues will never be an issue. Yes...if you get unlucky and lightning strikes, they will know your armed...IF you are forced to use the gun...but this suddenly falls again into the, "Who cares what sign I saw...at least I am alive", category.

It appears that some folks are absolutely paranoid about being discovered carrying a handgun. I say paranoid because it is an irrational fear. Nobody knows your carrying but you and the folks you tell.

PUCKER wrote:Maybe the phone number is routed to the Grapevine Police Department??

What's the point of a law if it doesn't mean anything? Especially to the people sworn to uphold it? And to the people that work for the DPS CHL unit...?? That's literally C R A Z Y...

Whats the jab at grapevine PD for? I ask because I live there, and while waiting for my CHL to come in I've noticed quite a few businesses with improper signage. How does grapevine PD treat these signs, for example the one @ buffalo wild wings.

Edit: Another question is this: If it says "no weapons allowed on premises" the argument can be made that this insinuates that it refers to illegal weapons, as LE is allowed on premises with guns, as should a permitted person.

Sewer_Ice wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Maybe the phone number is routed to the Grapevine Police Department??

What's the point of a law if it doesn't mean anything? Especially to the people sworn to uphold it? And to the people that work for the DPS CHL unit...?? That's literally C R A Z Y...

Whats the jab at grapevine PD for? I ask because I live there, and while waiting for my CHL to come in I've noticed quite a few businesses with improper signage. How does grapevine PD treat these signs, for example the one @ buffalo wild wings.

Edit: Another question is this: If it says "no weapons allowed on premises" the argument can be made that this insinuates that it refers to illegal weapons, as LE is allowed on premises with guns, as should a permitted person.

GVPD has stated that they would arrest a person for carrying a concealed handgun in the Grapevine Mills Mall. The signs posted at the mall entrances are not correct and they either don't care or don't know. I think at least a couple folks on this forum have called to ask and pointed out that the sign are not compliant with 30.06, but whoever they spoke with either insisted that they were compliant or it didn't matter.

As far as Buffalo Wind Wings, if you're referring to the unlicensed possession sign, that is not an invalid sign. It just has no bearing on a CHL.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

chabouk wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Best answer: "I didn't tell them, exactly. More like it was kind of obvious when I shot the armed robber."

Exactly...and in a situation like that, who cares what kind of sign they had? Sure beats being found dead, right beside the non-compliant sign with no gun. I have no desire to die and then have everyone say..."If only he had his weapon... and gosh, he didn't even have to disarmed... what a great upstanding guy he was"!

The real point I was trying to make is that unless a person is seriously lacking in their manner of concealed carry, these issues will never be an issue. Yes...if you get unlucky and lightning strikes, they will know your armed...IF you are forced to use the gun...but this suddenly falls again into the, "Who cares what sign I saw...at least I am alive", category.

It appears that some folks are absolutely paranoid about being discovered carrying a handgun. I say paranoid because it is an irrational fear. Nobody knows your carrying but you and the folks you tell.

Y'all are forgetting the other more probable - and ultimately more "dangerous" for us - way that we can be "outed" as having a weapon. For whatever reason (make one up, cops do it all the time) a law enforcement officer while inside the "no guns allowed" premises says "let me see your ID".



Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, so now you're up in front of a judge with not one but two distinct D.T.P.'s for two separate charges (criminal trespass and failing to property ID yourself to a LEO). Perhaps your case isn't looking so good anymore.

Obviously, I'm sort of opening up the worst-case Murphy's Law scenario here, but it's not as far fetched as someone purposely outing themselves or using their weapon self defense.

austinrealtor wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

chabouk wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Best answer: "I didn't tell them, exactly. More like it was kind of obvious when I shot the armed robber."

Exactly...and in a situation like that, who cares what kind of sign they had? Sure beats being found dead, right beside the non-compliant sign with no gun. I have no desire to die and then have everyone say..."If only he had his weapon... and gosh, he didn't even have to disarmed... what a great upstanding guy he was"!

The real point I was trying to make is that unless a person is seriously lacking in their manner of concealed carry, these issues will never be an issue. Yes...if you get unlucky and lightning strikes, they will know your armed...IF you are forced to use the gun...but this suddenly falls again into the, "Who cares what sign I saw...at least I am alive", category.

It appears that some folks are absolutely paranoid about being discovered carrying a handgun. I say paranoid because it is an irrational fear. Nobody knows your carrying but you and the folks you tell.

Y'all are forgetting the other more probable - and ultimately more "dangerous" for us - way that we can be "outed" as having a weapon. For whatever reason (make one up, cops do it all the time) a law enforcement officer while inside the "no guns allowed" premises says "let me see your ID".



Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, so now you're up in front of a judge with not one but two distinct D.T.P.'s for two separate charges (criminal trespass and failing to property ID yourself to a LEO). Perhaps your case isn't looking so good anymore.

Obviously, I'm sort of opening up the worst-case Murphy's Law scenario here, but it's not as far fetched as someone purposely outing themselves or using their weapon self defense.

The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

Maybe I grew up different than some folks but where I come from Police officers don't randomly harass good honest citizens while they are just standing around in any establishment. As a matter of fact, Police officers typically say howdy if I say howdy to them and very often they will even say howdy first, once I make eye contact. I can't imagine, for one second, some police officer just randomly asking me for my ID for no reason other than a strange twist of fate. This is so ridiculous it is beyond comprehension. Would this random request for "papers" be similar to Nazi Germany under Hitler?

This is yet another example of an irrational fear.

57Coastie wrote:No comment. I take the 5th. Or is it the 2nd? Could be either one, I guess.

I'm pleading the 7th: we've been over all this before.

austinrealtor wrote:Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION,

Care to cite the law on that?

ScottDLS wrote: The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

Yes, but there is no penalty any more. And also, as lighteningrocks says, and I understand your point of likeliness, a LEO cannot just simply ask someone for ID unless they have a clear reason to. It's way too early for me to be able to find this in the statutes this morning, but there are clear guidelines to when a LEO may ask for ID. And I could very well be wrong on this one, but if one doesn't have to show ID, then I would think that one also doesn't have to show the CHL.