TexasCHLforum.com

Disclaimer: I have read just about every post on this topic and I am aware that it has been discussed to death, so I am sorry to bring it up again.

I am a very recent LTC Texan and the topic of prohibited locations was brought up in the class.
According to my instructor (an active & senior local LEO) - while the state has specifically stated what makes a legal notification in the form of a 30.06 and 30.07 sign, any notification that is reasonable (No Weapons Allowed, Gun Buster, etc) would also serve as notification and if called, HE would make an arrest for unlawful carry. Since we were in a class and I didn't have the knowledge that I have picked up in just the last 30 days I didn't challenge him.

I don't want to reignite the debate on this but I do have a couple of questions:

1. Is there case law yet which has tested this?

2. How would you approach the subject with the Instructor/LEO? I will likely see him again and would like to discuss this topic in more detail.

What about notifying DPS he is teaching material contrary to the law?

IANAL, but I think anyone in charge of a location can ask you to leave for almost any reason and failure to do so could result in arrest for trespassing. However, I think UCW would be a stretch unless the place were properly posted. Just my .02

I would think that your instructor may someday be seeing a lawsuit for false arrest.

diverman26 wrote:Disclaimer: I have read just about every post on this topic and I am aware that it has been discussed to death, so I am sorry to bring it up again.

I am a very recent LTC Texan and the topic of prohibited locations was brought up in the class.
According to my instructor (an active & senior local LEO) - while the state has specifically stated what makes a legal notification in the form of a 30.06 and 30.07 sign, any notification that is reasonable (No Weapons Allowed, Gun Buster, etc) would also serve as notification and if called, HE would make an arrest for unlawful carry. Since we were in a class and I didn't have the knowledge that I have picked up in just the last 30 days I didn't challenge him.

I don't want to reignite the debate on this but I do have a couple of questions:

1. Is there case law yet which has tested this?

2. How would you approach the subject with the Instructor/LEO? I will likely see him again and would like to discuss this topic in more detail.

First, any "no guns" sign is "legal" as long as it is not posted on government property. It is not enforceable unless it meets the requirements of the law. As to your numbered questions:

1. Yes, I believe that there is case law which has addressed unlawful arrests by a LEO. In this case, since the LEO is also a qualified LTC instructor (who should know better), I think you would have a strong case in civil court if you were in fact arrested for UCW when you received no notice other than a non-compliant 30.06 type sign.

2. If I had a relationship with the LEO, I might have a conversation with him and let him know that he is ignorant on this law. If he is not receptive to this conversation, or I don't have much of a relationship with him, I would likely send a letter to his division chief, copying the city attorney, and informing them that this officer has threatened to make unlawful arrests in this manner. You might want to send this certified and keep a copy for your records. If the LEO is then obstinate enough to actually carry through on his threat, I think the civil judgment would fairly compensate you for your time and trouble.

We don't need LEO's that think they can just make up the law as they see fit, and who want to go around arresting people who do things they don't personally like. Such individuals are either ignorant (best case) or they are bully's who became LEO's so they could push people around.

When a good faith arrest is made, LEOs have quasi-judicial immunity in a civil case. However, a good faith arrest cannot be made based upon a act that is clearly lawful. Texas law could not be more clear regarding the required notice under TPC §§30.06 and 30.07. The follow up to the "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" attitude is "LEO, you and your agency won't beat the civil suit." Heck, there may even be a Section 1983 action against an officer making such an arrest.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:What about notifying DPS he is teaching material contrary to the law?

Yes. The 30.06/07 signs were expressly written into law to prevent exactly the kind of nonsense your instructor was telling you.

The instructor doesn't seem like he is open to changing his position on this. He knows the law and is taking it upon himself to misrepresent the law to his students. That is a DPS issue since he is doing as part of his class.

I would never ask for a name in response to a post like the original, but I'd love to know the jurisdiction so that I may avoid it if at all possible. I tend to use situational awareness, but someone who's supposed to be one of the good guys saying something like that makes it much harder on a person.

I'm splitting hairs here, but
1) if I have an LTC, and
2) there is no valid 06/07 up that tells me the "no guns" sentiment applies to LTC's as well as the common horde
then IF they somehow figure out I'm carrying and ask me to leave and I DON'T, wouldn't I be arrested under 30.05 rather than .06/.07/UCW?

I would assume (I know, I know) that the LEO is pro LTC or he wouldn't be teaching the course. Having said that, I thought it odd that he would be so outside on this particular matter.

Even in a structured course such as the LTC, I can always tell which parts the instructor has a passion about. In this case it was the signage and safety (especially around children).

As an aside, just as I was proofreading this post another LEO came into my office to pick up a repaired piece of equipment. I asked him if had the same interpretation. His response was more in line with my thinking - "For what? If you were asked to leave then that's different, but if someone snuck into the back office and called, the worst I would do is explain that you should stay away from these people, they're idiots."

He also, unsolicited, opined about open carry. I only have 5 or so posts but even I know not to open that jar.

Merry Christmas to all.

diverman26 wrote:I would assume (I know, I know) that the LEO is pro LTC or he wouldn't be teaching the course. Having said that, I thought it odd that he would be so outside on this particular matter.

Even in a structured course such as the LTC, I can always tell which parts the instructor has a passion about. In this case it was the signage and safety (especially around children).

As an aside, just as I was proofreading this post another LEO came into my office to pick up a repaired piece of equipment. I asked him if had the same interpretation. His response was more in line with my thinking - "For what? If you were asked to leave then that's different, but if someone snuck into the back office and called, the worst I would do is explain that you should stay away from these people, they're idiots."

He also, unsolicited, opined about open carry. I only have 5 or so posts but even I know not to open that jar.

Merry Christmas to all.

I used to post on a poker strategy discussion board. They had a short list of banned topics that would be immediately closed by the moderators because they either had been hashed to death already or they were just a matter of personal opinion and / or likely to start a pointless fight. Topics included when to fold pocket aces pre-flop, and the appropriate amount to tip when you win a pot.

I would humbly suggest that we do the same here for posts about whether you should or should not open carry....

Which caliber is best for self-defense?




JK

mojo84 wrote:Which caliber is best for self-defense?




JK

What to do with your gun when you have to use a bathroom stall

allisji wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Which caliber is best for self-defense?




JK

What to do with your gun when you have to use a bathroom stall

Glocks vs 1911's