Invalid Signs at Dallas Love Field

[ScottDLS]

I'm creating a new thread for this topic because it was getting lost in the discussion of signs at Grapevine Mills Mall. I think the topic related to Dallas Love deserves its own discussion. Folks interested in the original topic can follow the link here.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 60#p355319" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jimlongley provided some valuable information regarding the views of some of the Dallas Police officers working at Love Field and their apparent belief that they could lawfully arrest a CHL holder for carrying there. This based on the signs posted there.

Jim -

What precisely would the officers at DFW or Love Field submit as the charge when they arrested a CHL holder for carrying? The intent of the signs at Dallas Love or the invisible signs at DFW is irrelevant. There is no law that makes it illegal for a CHL holder to carry in the non-secure areas of these airports as they are property of Texas government entities. How would the officers, especially at DFW, submit that their actions were proper enforcement of the law?

That's a question you would have to ask them, not me, I tried to re-educate a few, but was met with dogged resistance to a change in their interpretation. There are other threads here that show the Love Field signage, and some of the officers there state that they would arrest under "Trespass by a CHL holder."

The section of the Texas Penal Code titled 30.06 "Trespass by Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun" has the following language:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder: ...
...
(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.
...

I think this language is quite clear and find no other statutes that prohibit carry by a CHL holder in the non-secure area of Love Field. I think it's kind of sad that a sworn law officer is not willing to acknowledge the clear meaning of the statute, even when presented with the facts by someone like Jim. Anybody have any legal reasoning how an arrest could be proper and what charge would be sustained?

[jimlongley]

While I have no reasoning as to how an arrest could be proper, I can assure you that personal conversations with several officers assigned to the Love Field substation have revealed that some of them think the signage there, shown in the other thread, is a complete joke, while others did not, and a significant portion of the ones that would arrest overlap between the two groups. "Let the judge sort it out." was one of the answers I got.

These kinds of conversations were daily occurences between TSA personnel and the DAL LEOs, we worked in the same place doing the same kinds of things and taking breaks in the same places as well as standing around doing our thing. "What would you do if . . .?" "Aren't you afraid of false arrest . . ." "Nope, acting within my understanding of the law."

Calling Love Field admin. got answers on the order of "Those signs are completely valid and enforceable." Trying to talk sense into them was like talking to a brick wall. Calling the City of Dallas led to referral to Love Field admin, and further calls to them were referred to the city, and I never could identify a person with direct responsibility for the signage.

[ScottDLS]

While I have no reasoning as to how an arrest could be proper, I can assure you that personal conversations with several officers assigned to the Love Field substation have revealed that some of them think the signage there, shown in the other thread, is a complete joke, while others did not, and a significant portion of the ones that would arrest overlap between the two groups. "Let the judge sort it out." was one of the answers I got.

These kinds of conversations were daily occurences between TSA personnel and the DAL LEOs, we worked in the same place doing the same kinds of things and taking breaks in the same places as well as standing around doing our thing. "What would you do if . . .?" "Aren't you afraid of false arrest . . ." "Nope, acting within my understanding of the law."

Calling Love Field admin. got answers on the order of "Those signs are completely valid and enforceable." Trying to talk sense into them was like talking to a brick wall. Calling the City of Dallas led to referral to Love Field admin, and further calls to them were referred to the city, and I never could identify a person with direct responsibility for the signage.

I'm not surprised, but I'll bet that none of these Dallas LEO's has ever arrested anyone for carrying past these signs with a CHL. Because if they had, the memo would have come down from the Dallas County Prosecutor to stop wasting their time.

The only incident I ever recall hearing of a CHL holder being detained at DAL, was someone trying to go into the SECURE area of the airport with a gun. And it was a Texas criminal district attorney with a CHL. My understanding is that after reading the Penal Code (at the prompting of said attorney ) the LEO's found that the section Texas PC 46.03 prohibiting carry in the secure area of an airport is non-applicable to State/County Attorneys with a CHL. Says so right in PC 46.15. Although apparently he didn't continue into the secure area, but instead secured his weapon in his car.

I fly out in and out of Washington Reagan (DCA) a lot. The number of armed Feds and LEO's of all stripes (FBI, Treasury, DHS, State, Air Marshals, Secret Service, etc.) is so big that they have two MWAA Police and a TSA guy at the "wrong way" entrance just to process them all. Sometimes their line is longer than for us mere plebeians getting screened by TSA.

[sjfcontrol]

Can someone explain the "...invisible signs at DFW..." comment? I have never been to Love Field, but I pick people up at DFW on an irregular basis. I would SURE like to know if I'm liable to get into trouble there.

[C-dub]

Can someone explain the "...invisible signs at DFW..." comment? I have never been to Love Field, but I pick people up at DFW on an irregular basis. I would SURE like to know if I'm liable to get into trouble there.

There are no signs at DFW for the non-secure area like there are at Love Field. If I'm not flying out of DFW I've carried every time I've been there since having a CHL and never been questioned. However, what is being eluded to here is that if you were discovered some or many of the LE that work there would arrest you just for having a gun in the airport. Even the non-secure area. I think at this point the only thing one could legally be prosecuted for is, well I'm not sure. It would depend on why or how you were discovered, but you could not be successfully prosecuted for simply having a gun, provided you were a CHL, in the non-secure area of the airport.

[C-dub]

While I have no reasoning as to how an arrest could be proper, I can assure you that personal conversations with several officers assigned to the Love Field substation have revealed that some of them think the signage there, shown in the other thread, is a complete joke, while others did not, and a significant portion of the ones that would arrest overlap between the two groups. "Let the judge sort it out." was one of the answers I got.

These kinds of conversations were daily occurences between TSA personnel and the DAL LEOs, we worked in the same place doing the same kinds of things and taking breaks in the same places as well as standing around doing our thing. "What would you do if . . .?" "Aren't you afraid of false arrest . . ." "Nope, acting within my understanding of the law."

Calling Love Field admin. got answers on the order of "Those signs are completely valid and enforceable." Trying to talk sense into them was like talking to a brick wall. Calling the City of Dallas led to referral to Love Field admin, and further calls to them were referred to the city, and I never could identify a person with direct responsibility for the signage.

I think one of the LEOs that might be in charge of something at Love Field might be the father of one of my daughter's classmates. I communicate more with his wife, but I think that she's mentioned his level of responsibility before. I may ask him about this, but I'm not sure how to broach the subject. Any suggestions? Should I or should I not even attempt this at all?

[sjfcontrol]

There are no signs at DFW for the non-secure area like there are at Love Field. If I'm not flying out of DFW I've carried every time I've been there since having a CHL and never been questioned. However, what is being eluded to here is that if you were discovered some or many of the LE that work there would arrest you just for having a gun in the airport. Even the non-secure area. I think at this point the only thing one could legally be prosecuted for is, well I'm not sure. It would depend on why or how you were discovered, but you could not be successfully prosecuted for simply having a gun, provided you were a CHL, in the non-secure area of the airport.

OK -- In one sense, good to know. However, it seems to me according to this thread, that answer is pretty much true ANYWHERE, and with ANY SIGNAGE. The police can simply "decide" that their understanding of the law is such that you're breaking it, even if you're not. Thus resulting in a ride at the minimum, and perhaps prosecution. Not a very desirable situation IMO.

[C-dub]

There are no signs at DFW for the non-secure area like there are at Love Field. If I'm not flying out of DFW I've carried every time I've been there since having a CHL and never been questioned. However, what is being eluded to here is that if you were discovered some or many of the LE that work there would arrest you just for having a gun in the airport. Even the non-secure area. I think at this point the only thing one could legally be prosecuted for is, well I'm not sure. It would depend on why or how you were discovered, but you could not be successfully prosecuted for simply having a gun, provided you were a CHL, in the non-secure area of the airport.

OK -- In one sense, good to know. However, it seems to me according to this thread, that answer is pretty much true ANYWHERE, and with ANY SIGNAGE. The police can simply "decide" that their understanding of the law is such that you're breaking it, even if you're not. Thus resulting in a ride at the minimum, and perhaps prosecution. Not a very desirable situation IMO.

True enough, but this really only seems to be a problem in the areas where the rules have changed over the years and the police didn't keep up with those changes or some just decided that they don't care and will let the judge sort out. That also seems to be a prominent theme.

[C-dub]

Just for my own piece of mind, isn't the 30.05 sign basically informing one that if they are given notice that a weapon is prohibited that they will be prosecuted? In the case of Love Field, there are no 30.06 signs, right? Forget about the legality of posting a 30.06 sign there for the moment. I don't think there are any there. So, we have not been given notice, right?

And then there's the whole issue with the airport being owned by the city and being unable to legally prohibit CHLs from carrying in the non-secure areas of the airport. Are these the points you tried to argue with them Mr. Longley?

[Afff_667]

The only incident I ever recall hearing of a CHL holder being detained at DAL, was someone trying to go into the SECURE area of the airport with a gun. And it was a Texas criminal district attorney with a CHL.

Actually, I think this was the City of Garland's attorney, Brad Neighbor. He claimed he "forgot" the Glock was in his carry-on bag/briefcase....

[dklag37]

I've been reading the posts regarding proper signage and the government's intentional misinterpretation of the laws that are clear. The basic understanding that I have come to is that some Law Enforcement Officers do not know the laws, therefore are not enforcing the law by misinterpreting or not acknowledging the law. This can lead to prosecution for breaking a law/laws that has no merit and could be done so successfully? ... I know I may be taking this to the extreme, but it seems to me that basically we are carrying "at your own risk" and the law does not protect us from unlawful prosecution.

When I hear people say that even when they present the LEO with proof of legal carry and the LEO says he/she will let the Judge sort it out, it really troubles me. It seems to me that the LEO is not there for the service and protection of the law abiding, rather to criminalize the law abiding. A police officer that doesn't know the law is a dangerous thing.

I have nothing but love for the officers that go out there everyday to risk their lives for the protection and service for the law abiding, but the bad ones are the ones that irk me.

[jimlongley]

Just for my own piece of mind, isn't the 30.05 sign basically informing one that if they are given notice that a weapon is prohibited that they will be prosecuted? In the case of Love Field, there are no 30.06 signs, right? Forget about the legality of posting a 30.06 sign there for the moment. I don't think there are any there. So, we have not been given notice, right?

And then there's the whole issue with the airport being owned by the city and being unable to legally prohibit CHLs from carrying in the non-secure areas of the airport. Are these the points you tried to argue with them Mr. Longley?

I tried to argue all of the various points with them on different occasions, the responses varied little, even pointing out that the legislature had changed the rules, and showing them the printouts had little effect. The law about cities was changed while I was there, and when I asked an administrator about removing the previously invalid and now totally meaningless signs, and was told that they still considered the signs valid, etc.

The point I keep trying to make, and that everyone seems to be ignoring, is that some various law enforcement personnel interpret the law differently than we do, and all of this pontificating about "I'll go past any sign I consider invalid." is merely that. What we need, in the face of a lack of court decisions, is legislative relief, absolutely iron clad wording, nothing left to the imagination, if the sign doesn't meet the standard, it isn't enforceable.

Love Field's signs are "30.05" and claim to apply to CHL holders, and various LEOs and administrators there say they will enforce them, while DFW's police have told me that it's stright up illegal to carry in the airport, so it doesn't need signs.

Simpler legislation without multiple sections covering the same or similar things, and proper education is what I see as the answer, and even then there will be those on each side of the issue who will find parts to debate.

[C-dub]

I agree with you Jim.

Much of the language is straight forward and to ignore it, IMO, is criminal. That does not serve or protect "the people." It only serves those in power. It's strange, but I agree with them that the 30.05 sign is valid and enforceable. However, as has been noted, there is no notification that we can't carry in the non-secure areas of an airport and in many cases, like Love Field, such notification is invalid in many circumstances due to who owns the property or airport.

So, what would your opinion be of me trying to speak with the father of one of my daughters friends, that is an LEO at Love Field and may have some influence? I have reservations about this and here a just a few reasons.

1. I only use Love Field once or twice every couple of years and then only to pick up or drop someone off. It wouldn't effect me much at all.
2. Basically disclosing my CHL status to someone that may not be sympathetic to CHLs.
3. He may already be someone you've spoken to.

[ScottDLS]

I tried to argue all of the various points with them on different occasions, the responses varied little, even pointing out that the legislature had changed the rules, and showing them the printouts had little effect. The law about cities was changed while I was there, and when I asked an administrator about removing the previously invalid and now totally meaningless signs, and was told that they still considered the signs valid, etc.

The point I keep trying to make, and that everyone seems to be ignoring, is that some various law enforcement personnel interpret the law differently than we do, and all of this pontificating about "I'll go past any sign I consider invalid." is merely that. What we need, in the face of a lack of court decisions, is legislative relief, absolutely iron clad wording, nothing left to the imagination, if the sign doesn't meet the standard, it isn't enforceable.

Love Field's signs are "30.05" and claim to apply to CHL holders, and various LEOs and administrators there say they will enforce them, while DFW's police have told me that it's stright up illegal to carry in the airport, so it doesn't need signs.

Simpler legislation without multiple sections covering the same or similar things, and proper education is what I see as the answer, and even then there will be those on each side of the issue who will find parts to debate.

Jim - I personally appreciate your efforts to inform LEO's that just seem not to acknowledge that they are wrong. However, I don't think further clarification by the legislature would help, and I'd rather see us pursue other legislative goals. I contend there is no lack of clarity about being able to carry at DFW with a CHL. It's simple. There is no law against it. So you can. The legislature doesn't pass laws saying what it NOT a crime.

There's no difference than if these LEO's decided wearing a Cowboys jersey at DFW was illegal. I may not be able to "beat the ride", but I'm going to keep wearing my jersey because it's not a crime (Eagle's jersey maybe, but I digress...). I suspect the reason we haven't seen any cases around this (guns, not jerseys) is because nobody is getting arrested for it. Or they are getting really quickly released after the prosecutor discovers that he has no case. Probably nothing has gone before a court, because there's been nothing to take before a court. The argument about being worried of "taking the ride" because of cost, jail time, etc. really rings hollow with me. If a cop can just decide to arrest me for anything that is not a crime, I don't really know what I can do to avoid it.

By the way, thanks to the other folks for participating in my topic. I think its worth discussing here on the forum, which is why I launched it yesterday from the Grapevine Mills thread.

-Scott

[jimlongley]

I agree with you Jim.

Much of the language is straight forward and to ignore it, IMO, is criminal. That does not serve or protect "the people." It only serves those in power. It's strange, but I agree with them that the 30.05 sign is valid and enforceable. However, as has been noted, there is no notification that we can't carry in the non-secure areas of an airport and in many cases, like Love Field, such notification is invalid in many circumstances due to who owns the property or airport.

So, what would your opinion be of me trying to speak with the father of one of my daughters friends, that is an LEO at Love Field and may have some influence? I have reservations about this and here a just a few reasons.

1. I only use Love Field once or twice every couple of years and then only to pick up or drop someone off. It wouldn't effect me much at all.
2. Basically disclosing my CHL status to someone that may not be sympathetic to CHLs.
3. He may already be someone you've spoken to.

I would not be bothered if you wanted to call and verify, but like you I have a tendency not to want to rub any sore spots.

The officers I spoke to, at different times during the three years I was there, were spoken to during social interactions, coffee break/lunch/just chatting while standing around waiting for something to happen, not as part of anything official. The TSA people were about 75% in favor of concealed carry in general (and the 25% included some of those irrational I"M SCARED OF GUNS" types) but not all thought that concealed carry should extend into the aiport. The discussions tended to be something like our fora, with an original opinion expressed or question asked, and it might go on for hours, dragging in other screeners, LEOs, and even innocent passersby.

Some of us made our politics well known, even including bringing in the latest issues of gun magazines with our names and addresses still on them, and such things as my NRA belt with the NRA logo embossed in the black leather all around that I was eventually asked to leave home.

I won't say that I talked with every LEO there about it, there were some I never interacted with even in an official capacity, but I would call my contacts a representative sample, and it botherred me, then and now, that some were not cognizant of the law or changes in the law and were not interested in knowing.

BTW,

The only incident I ever recall hearing of a CHL holder being detained at DAL, was someone trying to go into the SECURE area of the airport with a gun. And it was a Texas criminal district attorney with a CHL.

Actually, I think this was the City of Garland's attorney, Brad Neighbor. He claimed he "forgot" the Glock was in his carry-on bag/briefcase....

During my three years there, there were several such incidents, all claiming to have forgotten a gun that they were carrying off their body, and a LEO who forgot he was carrying at all. Not all of them make the news.

-------------------------------------

BTW, For a while after I left TSA I traveled constantly, flying out every week either from DAL or DFW and I always carried, right to the rest room before checking my gun - at least if I was going to a gun friendly place. One time I thought I might get in trouble, I started out flying to a state that recognizes TX CHL and then my itinerary got changed and I was to fly back from the new destination through Chicago, but I convinced them to let me avoid Chicago.