"Gun-Buster" Sign Legal?

[The Annoyed Man]

I’m also amazed that no instructor students made a challenge to that attitude. Why didn’t someone ask “So the intent of the legislature means nothing to you?”

I know he has weighed in once, but I’d like to know what Charles L. Cotton thinks of this!

[apostate]

I’m also amazed that no instructor students made a challenge to that attitude. Why didn’t someone ask “So the intent of the legislature means nothing to you?”

If they're so unprofessional as to teach their own prejudices as law, perhaps discretion is the better part of valor.

[Vol Texan]

I’m also amazed that no instructor students made a challenge to that attitude. Why didn’t someone ask “So the intent of the legislature means nothing to you?”

If they're so unprofessional as to teach their own prejudices as law, perhaps discretion is the better part of valor.

Some of us did challenge this, but they (instructors) were adamant. They remained very professional about this and all other topics, so none of us pushed hard after that. Doing so in that class would be a no-win battle.

[mojo84]

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.

Maybe Charles can visit with them on this.

I find it very disturbing something like what is being alleged is being said and taught to instructors. It makes it hard to respect a government entity that blatantly disregards the law and makes their own.

[Oldgringo]

Reality Check:

Should the local fuzz be allowed to arrest a CHL for OC'ing past a 'gunbuster' sign and can arrest and charge that CHL on any number of other additional, trumped up charges including MWAG. Is it any wonder that the BLM, etc. cults have formed?

Something ain't right in this picture. To paraphrase the scriptures, "...LEO cleanse thyselves...".

[treadlightly]

Reality Check:

Should the local fuzz be allowed to arrest a CHL for OC'ing past a 'gunbuster' sign and can arrest and charge that CHL on any number of other additional, trumped up charges including MWAG. Is it any wonder that the BLM, etc. cults have formed?

Something ain't right in this picture. To paraphrase the scriptures, "...LEO cleanse thyselves...".

For balance, despite what might be said in Austin's ivory halls, law enforcement is already on our side, at least generally. I do not expect to encounter repercussions from a peace officer if it comes to light I'm carrying a firearm. Around here, anyway, they all recommend it for law abiding citizens.

Prior to the CHL law, it was somewhat different, but not markedly so. At a gun seminar held by a local police department in about 1990, I carried a concealed .38 snubby. That was a lawful carry, even if edgy, because I was going to a gun seminar where the public was invited to shoot with supervision. I shot my .45, the handgun I carried in a plastic gun case, got complimented, and asked if I could shoot my other pistol. There were some chuckles and hoots from officers when I drew my loaded concealed handgun and fired, but no chiding, lectures, nothing negative at all. Just another honest country boy striving for proper range etiquette with his handgun.

Now, if we could just elevate the city slickers among us to the level of enlightenment found on a moonlit evening beside a quiet creek, coyotes in song and night critters rustling around, we'd probably find the question of guns rather moot.

[rtschl]

no DPS attorney can tell me to teach a false statement of the law.

Charles Cotton 2009: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 82#p349180

Similar issue came up in above thread in 2009 - where DPS was telling instructors that CHL holders could not carry in a church, hospital, nursing home, amusement park etc. If memory serves me, Charles got that corrected with DPS rather quickly.

Interestingly, the AG just made an opinion on that issue (church carry) this past week per request from the LT. Governor that could be applicable to this topic. See AG Opinion here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ne ... s-churches

“If a church decides to exclude the concealed or open carrying of handguns on the premises of church property, it may provide the requisite notice, thereby making it an offense for a license holder to carry a handgun on those premises,” Attorney General Paxton wrote in his opinion. “However, churches may instead decide not to provide notice and to allow the carrying of handguns on their premises. Unless a church provides effective oral or written notice prohibiting the carrying of handguns on its property, a license holder may carry a handgun onto the premises of church property as the law allows.” Emphasis mine

With that AG opinion, the same would and should apply for any business as churches do not have different requirements for signage/notice in the statute: Requisite notice or effective oral or written notice must be provided in order to be an offense. IANAL but with his use of the phrase "requisite notice" that is clearly stating that only proper signage i.e. 30.06 and 30.07 would make it an offense to carry.

[Abraham]

So 'intent' equals the force of law?

Who knew..?

P.S, I'm still walking past gun buster signs.

[kw5kw]

So 'intent' equals the force of law?

Who knew..?

P.S, I'm still walking past gun buster signs.

[oljames3]

So 'intent' equals the force of law?

Who knew..?

P.S, I'm still walking past gun buster signs.

I do not see such signs often, but when I do I am confident that they do not apply to licensed carrying.

[K.Mooneyham]

Well, I guess my earlier statement asking about what jurisdiction that LEO covered is now irrelevant based on several other posts. Seems that if LEOs around the state are listening to DPS on this, no place is "safe", so to speak. And it sure does seem wrong, that our state-wide law-enforcement agency charged with public safety, would happily arrest people who aren't breaking the law.

[twomillenium]

WOW! The DPS is starting to show a kind of deterioration of there understanding of the law and how it is written. This was evident at the instructors renewal class this year. I was hoping they were just having a bad day.

[Keith B]

WOW! The DPS is starting to show a kind of deterioration of there understanding of the law and how it is written. This was evident at the instructors renewal class this year. I was hoping they were just having a bad day.

I disagree with the statement above. There is no deterioration in my opinion. They have made this statement all along, well as long as I have been an instructor anyway. And I believe they are just parroting what the DPS lawyers are saying. Right or wrong, we on this forum know that it would be a stretch for them to make the arrest, much less a conviction.

Let's get real about what they say and how it would be affected. First, you would have to be found carrying. If you are concealed properly, no one is going to see it and no issue should arise. If you carry past any sign openly, you are just asking to be given verbal notice, and you now have been properly advised you have to leave. If not, then they can arrest you for failure to depart.

SO, IMO the chances are between slim and none, and Slim has left town, that a properly concealed carrier would ever run into this situation.

As the shirt says, Be Calm and Carry On

[Mike S]

WOW! The DPS is starting to show a kind of deterioration of there understanding of the law and how it is written. This was evident at the instructors renewal class this year. I was hoping they were just having a bad day.

I disagree with the statement above. There is no deterioration in my opinion. They have made this statement all along, well as long as I have been an instructor anyway. And I believe they are just parroting what the DPS lawyers are saying. Right or wrong, we on this forum know that it would be a stretch for them to make the arrest, much less a conviction.

Let's get real about what they say and how it would be affected. First, you would have to be found carrying. If you are concealed properly, no one is going to see it and no issue should arise. If you carry past any sign openly, you are just asking to be given verbal notice, and you now have been properly advised you have to leave. If not, then they can arrest you for failure to depart.

SO, IMO the chances are between slim and none, and Slim has left town, that a properly concealed carrier would ever run into this situation.

As the shirt says, Be Calm and Carry On

Keith,

When I went through the Instructor Course in July 2012 they clearly stated that the 30.06 signage must meet the statutory requirements in order for it to be considered notice (based on the clear & plain wording of the Legislature), however they did caveat that with "since there's 254 counties in the state of Texas", you really need to consult with your local sheriff &/or prosecutor to determine their interpretation / enforcement (or something to that effect). They also advised us that regardless of the enforceability of gun buster signs, since the local jurisdiction may or may not understand/interpret correctly, that it would be prudent to encourage our students to "not become the test case" for this since there was no case law yet (...and to my knowledge, there's still no case law for precedent...). This was in no way presented as encouraging the instructors to mis-represent what the statute actually said, but to rather put the onus on the students to check with their specific jurisdiction for how they would intend to handle it, & to encourage the license holder to err on the side of caution to avoid problems down the road.

During the Instructor Renewal class in 2013 I don't recall it being addressed any differently. Same core cadre as 2012.

During the Instructor Renewal class this year (2017), this block had a different tone, to the effect of "well if you see this, then you aught to know what the intention of the property owner is. Why would you carry past this?" Several of the LTC Instructors in attendance pointed out the discrepancy, & it went nowhere but in circles. (I don't recall if the Trooper said he would arrest on this, but the delivery was definitely not in line with the statute).

I agree with twomillennium that there's been a shift in at least being able to temper fact from feeling.

ETA: I do agree with the rest of your sentiments, though. However, I do feel its important that (1) LTC Instructors understand the law, & present it accurately, & (2) LTC holders understand the law, & follow it. Misunderstandings & hyperbole from the 'schoolhouse' will continue to have an effect down stream unless corrected.

[Abraham]

Mike S

"...& to encourage the license holder to err on the side of caution to avoid problems down the road."

By that, I'm guessing you mean, obey 'gun buster signs' in certain part of Texas or do I misunderstand?

If so, as someone who thinks 30.06/30.07 signs are the only signs I consider valid, I once again state, 'gun buster signs' are meaning less to those of us who're licensed.

By the way, I'm not fussing at you as I fully appreciate you're just passing on what you were told.