Page 2 of 4

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:53 pm
by puma guy
oohrah wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:42 pm
This was a pretty good apparently non-baised article about red flag laws and alerting police about MWAG

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... s-shooting

However, then I read this "But if someone's in a liquor store with a handgun on his hip, that is illegal, Daniels said. “A liquor store is a prohibited place for a license to carry holder,” he said."

This is of course absolutely false. A liquor store must post the TABC Blue sign for unlicensed possession, but the owner can decide whether to post 30.06/30.07 or not. The Sgt. may be confusing the 51% Red sign. However, it is disturbing that he does not know the law.
Had a conversation with a Bulverde LEO working security at a package store who stated emphatically LTC holders open or concealed were strictly prohibited from entering a liquors store. I politely pointed out the sign verbiage on the front door stating unlicensed carry was illegal, but it fell on deaf and ignorant ears. As one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last 30+ years and given there are so many LTC's it should be incumbent on ALL LEO's and their departments to make sure they know the law. A police officer pleading ignorance as an excuse in NO excuse, IMHO.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:53 pm
by crazy2medic
When an officer and his department get sued for false arrest, they'll be more diligent in their department training!

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:17 pm
by Jago668
crazy2medic wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:53 pm
When an officer and his department get sued for false arrest, they'll be more diligent in their department training!
Such settlements need to be paid by wage garnishment. I have a feeling that would learn people real fast. It's easy to be blase about such things until it's your money on the line.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:23 pm
by RicoTX
If ignorance of the law is not an excuse for a citizen, it should not be an excuse for an officer either.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:16 pm
by warnmar10
Jago668 wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:17 pm
crazy2medic wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:53 pm
When an officer and his department get sued for false arrest, they'll be more diligent in their department training!
Such settlements need to be paid by wage garnishment. I have a feeling that would learn people real fast. It's easy to be blase about such things until it's your money on the line.
[rant]I propose every employed officer must maintain his or her own professional liability insurance. The employing agency can pay its officers premiums as part of negotiated officer compensation. If an officer arrests someone for carrying in a liquor store the falsely arrested would seek damages against the officer's insurance policy, not the agency or government body. Officers who have multiple large payouts may become difficult to insure and the rates prohibitively high.[/rant] Clearly some details left to iron out but it could help solve a lot of problems.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:21 pm
by Lynyrd
puma guy wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:53 pm
oohrah wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:42 pm
This was a pretty good apparently non-baised article about red flag laws and alerting police about MWAG

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2 ... s-shooting

However, then I read this "But if someone's in a liquor store with a handgun on his hip, that is illegal, Daniels said. “A liquor store is a prohibited place for a license to carry holder,” he said."

This is of course absolutely false. A liquor store must post the TABC Blue sign for unlicensed possession, but the owner can decide whether to post 30.06/30.07 or not. The Sgt. may be confusing the 51% Red sign. However, it is disturbing that he does not know the law.
Had a conversation with a Bulverde LEO working security at a package store who stated emphatically LTC holders open or concealed were strictly prohibited from entering a liquors store. I politely pointed out the sign verbiage on the front door stating unlicensed carry was illegal, but it fell on deaf and ignorant ears. As one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last 30+ years and given there are so many LTC's it should be incumbent on ALL LEO's and their departments to make sure they know the law. A police officer pleading ignorance as an excuse in NO excuse, IMHO.
:iagree: :rules:

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:37 am
by chasfm11
rotor wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 1:30 pm
Perhaps you can refer him to this...
I'll risk a little thread drift and suggest that this document is an example of significant government overreach. TABC was created in 1935 with this mission statement
Under the Alcoholic Beverage Code, the TABC "shall inspect, supervise and regulate every phase of the business of manufacturing, importing, exporting, transporting, storing, selling, advertising, labeling and distributing alcoholic beverages, and the possession of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale or otherwise."
The document appears, at least to me, to go far beyond that.

I have talked to some restaurant owners who claim that the possible reports to TABC are the reason that they posted their places with 30.07 signs. Apparently, if there was an incident with an open carrier and the police were called, a report must be made. I'm guess that a report has to be made anytime police are called to a place (and this one only had beer and wine) with a liquor license.

I'll take it a step further. I won't defend LEOs who don't understand the TPC but one of the reasons that it is so hard to remember all of the laws is that there are so many of them and they seem to be too often as convoluted as the one on churches. I do get it. It was probably easier to get it passed through the legislature at that point in history than it would have been to completely revise the language as has just been done. The TPC code is just part of that. The Administrative Code that Child Protective Services uses to try to control guns is no better than the parts for the TABC. I submit that noone is capable of figuring that all out without help and a lot of study.

The major purpose of laws (in my view) is supposed to give citizens understand what to do. This certainly doesn't accomplish that.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:25 pm
by bubba84
Image

Image

Image


Will post their next response when received.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:49 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
Wow! It sure looks like they are seriously in need of training. Maybe the person responding is the problem.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:03 pm
by Noggin
I have lost count of the number of times I have open carried in SPECS, without at single comment from anyone. The only signs they have relate to Unlicensed Carry, therefore I see no reason to change my behaviour. I think if I were challenged by LEO I would politely inform him that I will be contacting my prepaid legal service and shall be looking forward to seeing him in court.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:14 pm
by 03Lightningrocks
Noggin wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:03 pm
I have lost count of the number of times I have open carried in SPECS, without at single comment from anyone. The only signs they have relate to Unlicensed Carry, therefore I see no reason to change my behaviour. I think if I were challenged by LEO I would politely inform him that I will be contacting my prepaid legal service and shall be looking forward to seeing him in court.
It seems to me that an officer would have to agree once you pointed to the sign where it plainly states "unlicensed" carry. Once producing your LTC, they would have to agree??? Surely???

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:19 pm
by LDP
03Lightningrocks wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:14 pm
Noggin wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:03 pm
I have lost count of the number of times I have open carried in SPECS, without at single comment from anyone. The only signs they have relate to Unlicensed Carry, therefore I see no reason to change my behaviour. I think if I were challenged by LEO I would politely inform him that I will be contacting my prepaid legal service and shall be looking forward to seeing him in court.
It seems to me that an officer would have to agree once you pointed to the sign where it plainly states "unlicensed" carry. Once producing your LTC, they would have to agree??? Surely???
Some officers are open to a calm and adult discussion, some are hard-headed and uncooperative. We're all human. They're just humans with a lot more authority.
If the LEO is unwilling to correct his/her misunderstanding of the law, don't fight the arrest and your first phonecall from jail should be to your lawyer to discuss how big of a boat the tax payers will be buying you through the local PD.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:10 pm
by Keith B
bubba84 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:25 pm
Image

Image

Image


Will post their next response when received.
They’re missing the ‘for on-premise consumption’ part. That needs to be pointed out and that it totally nullifies the liquor store because there is code that says you can’t consume on their premises.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:21 pm
by baseballguy2001
You guys are dreaming waiting for them to correct anything. You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. If you do get hauled downtown for something like this, you are seriously deluded if you think any sort of a large settlement would be forthcoming afterward. When government breaks the law, it's known as a inadvertent policy error. There are no consequences, no unpaid suspensions, and certainly no monetary settlements.

Re: FWPD Sgt Doesn't know LTC law

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:28 pm
by ScottDLS
baseballguy2001 wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:21 pm
You guys are dreaming waiting for them to correct anything. You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. If you do get hauled downtown for something like this, you are seriously deluded if you think any sort of a large settlement would be forthcoming afterward. When government breaks the law, it's known as a inadvertent policy error. There are no consequences, no unpaid suspensions, and certainly no monetary settlements.
I agree that the likelihood of recovering damages is low, however the chances of "taking the ride" for something that's not illegal is probably similarly low. My guess is the misinformed LEO would likely make you leave the premises, while telling you what a favor he was doing you for not arresting you for a (non)felony.