TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Penn wrote:

Kalrog wrote:

Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.

They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.

You are saying that if they ask you to leave, that you don't have to? That is just ludicrous. You have no inherent right to be at the AAC. They can kick you out for almost anything. If you refuse, you are trespassing.

Defense to prosecution and all that. Of course once they find this out, they will make up a different excuse.

PC 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Wanna bet they can't kick you out?

Go there with your gun and CHL and be the test case. I'll bet they can not only kick you out, but they can and will throw you in jail as well.

And they won't need to make up some other excuse. They will kick you out because you have a gun and refuse to leave.

This thread is getting ludicrous.

30.06 treats owning or leasing by a government entity as the same thing. Doesn't it follow that owning or leasing by a PRIVATE ENTITY would also be the same?

Forget wishful thinking. Forget the way you would like it to be. Just look at the simple logic of it.

Wanna bet you can't read? I will take that bet. I wrote "Defense to prosecution and all that. Of course once they find this out, they will make up a different excuse." Thus implying they will find a way to kick you out.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: 30.06 treats owning or leasing by a government entity as the same thing. Doesn't it follow that owning or leasing by a PRIVATE ENTITY would also be the same?

Forget wishful thinking. Forget the way you would like it to be. Just look at the simple logic of it.

Simple logic dictates that a lessor cannot grant a lessee rights which the lessor does not have.

The simple fact is that a leasehold is not the same thing as ownership. Owners and lessors may have many similar rights, but a lessor cannot grant rights to a property that they own which they themselves do not have, so a lessor of property leased from a governmental entity cannot have rights that the governmental entity does not have.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, if it were that simple to get around legal restrictions, leases would be the by-word for every business (just think about the restrictions placed on commercial real estate as an example - "Don't want to abide by the ADA? No problem! Simply LEASE the property instead of buying it!" - It just doesn't work that way...).

Renegade wrote:

Penn wrote:

Kalrog wrote:

Penn wrote:However, once they mag you, find the gun and ask you to leave, you are obligated to do so. They have every right to do this.

They sure have every right to ask you to leave, but they have no power to force it. <Insert test case warning here> They only reason you are being asked to leave is because of you are legally armed via CHL. 30.06 makes it pretty clear that property owned by a governmental agency cannot bar you access simply because of your armed status under CHL authority.

You are saying that if they ask you to leave, that you don't have to? That is just ludicrous. You have no inherent right to be at the AAC. They can kick you out for almost anything. If you refuse, you are trespassing.

Defense to prosecution and all that. Of course once they find this out, they will make up a different excuse.

PC 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

All this means is that they have to warn you first before they arrest you (assuming they have no legal right to post 30.06). Once they tell you to hit the road, you are obligated to leave.

Mithras61 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: 30.06 treats owning or leasing by a government entity as the same thing. Doesn't it follow that owning or leasing by a PRIVATE ENTITY would also be the same?

Forget wishful thinking. Forget the way you would like it to be. Just look at the simple logic of it.

Simple logic dictates that a lessor cannot grant a lessee rights which the lessor does not have.

The simple fact is that a leasehold is not the same thing as ownership. Owners and lessors may have many similar rights, but a lessor cannot grant rights to a property that they own which they themselves do not have, so a lessor of property leased from a governmental entity cannot have rights that the governmental entity does not have..

1) 30.06 treats owning or leasing by a government entity as the same thing.

Likewise, owning or leasing by a private entity is the same thing.

2) The leasor isn't granting anything to the leasee. The leasee ALREADY HAS THE RIGHT, by virtue of being a private entity, of posting enforceable 30.06 signs on any property he, she, or it, happens to own or lease.

3) This is way beyond a dead horse. Feel free to test your legal theories at your own expense.

I'm happy with mine as is.

I agree that this is a dead horse. We've already had a lawyer clarify the law several times. That renders all of this IANAL speculation moot. Re-hashing it repeatedly isn't going to make it suddenly become correct by virtue of volume.

I have an update... Mr. JD Hancock is actually a John Hancock (how is that for a famous name?). He responded to my request for his email address and I have now asked him for a response on the CHL question. We will see what happens next, but all communications with AAC have been courteous so far. Now let's just see what the position is.

Kalrog wrote:I have an update... Mr. JD Hancock is actually a John Hancock (how is that for a famous name?). .

Especially if he turns out to be anti2A

Dwight K. Schrute wrote:

Im not sure but I think he trying to tell us something. I could be wrong though.

This does need to be brought to a conclusion gentlemen.
Lets work to that end please.

We could hold a picket out front some weekend with signs stating that the AAC is discrimanating against CHL holders when the law expressly forbids them kicking out people who hold a CHL Heck maybe we would even get a little news coverage. The squeky wheel gets the oil. Until we find a way to come together and bring attention to this problem we will never get anything solved. I am not a fan on waiting for a test case.

We should be able to come up with a way to put pressure on the businesses legally and yet at the same time express our right to free speech in a legal way.

Right2Carry wrote:We could hold a picket out front some weekend with signs stating that the AAC is discrimanating against CHL holders when the law expressly forbids them kicking out people who hold a CHL Heck maybe we would even get a little news coverage. The squeky wheel gets the oil. Until we find a way to come together and bring attention to this problem we will never get anything solved. I am not a fan on waiting for a test case.

We should be able to come up with a way to put pressure on the businesses legally and yet at the same time express our right to free speech in a legal way.

Some of you need to get your facts straight. The law does not forbid them from kicking out CHL holders. It forbids them (if you read it that way) from posting 30.06). They can pretty much kick out whomever they want without consequence. They post "no weapons" - they use a magnetometer, and find a weapon, they ask you to leave. Pretty simple.

I looked up the word "stubborn" in the dictionary, and lo and behold, Frankie's picture was there!

Just teasin, Frankie. I've enjoyed following this thread.

Penn wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:We could hold a picket out front some weekend with signs stating that the AAC is discrimanating against CHL holders when the law expressly forbids them kicking out people who hold a CHL Heck maybe we would even get a little news coverage. The squeky wheel gets the oil. Until we find a way to come together and bring attention to this problem we will never get anything solved. I am not a fan on waiting for a test case.

We should be able to come up with a way to put pressure on the businesses legally and yet at the same time express our right to free speech in a legal way.

Some of you need to get your facts straight. The law does not forbid them from kicking out CHL holders. It forbids them (if you read it that way) from posting 30.06). They can pretty much kick out whomever they want without consequence. They post "no weapons" - they use a magnetometer, and find a weapon, they ask you to leave. Pretty simple.

The law forbids them for kicking you out if the reason is carrying a concealed handgun when you are legal to do so. They can make up another reason but they cannot use your legal CHL as a reason to boot you if you are legal to be there. They cannot enforce 30.06 hence they have no legal grounds to kick you out for carrying your weapon under your CHL.

If they tell you that is what they are kicking you out for then I think they open themselves up to a potential lawsuit. IANAL and this is only my opinion.

I want to make one clarification, thanks to CHL/LEO's earlier post. The long dissertation I did on TPC §30.05 not being applicable to CHL's is correct. However, after reading his post, I realized that I need to make something clear. If a property owner does say, "no guns on the property," and you don't leave, then you can't be prosecuted under TPC §30.05, but you can be prosecuted under TPC §30.06. Verbal notice under TPC §30.06 doesn't have to be any special language, as does a 30.06 sign.

All of the above applies only to private property, not government owned or leased property, as I explained earlier.

Thanks CHL/LEO.
Chas.