TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote: This arguement keeps coming up, and I also don't understand it. While I understand the signs are not legal. The intent is a good one and harmless. If you bring it in concealed. Keep it concealed. No one will know, and you can find comfort in the fact that if it ever went to court you would win.

Since there is no case law developed as yet, I think the only thing one could take "comfort" in (and very little comfort at that) is that if they are found out they will be ordered to leave and could possibly get arrested.

That's the reality of it. IANAL, but I would not be confident at all that such a case could be won.

Any good lawyer will tell you that you can never predict what may happen once you get to court. OJ, Robert Blake, Mickey D's hot coffee - you name it.

IMO, if someone carries into one of these venues, they should understand that they do so at their own risk.

With all the ND's we hear about, I would just let them zip-tie the gun and be done with it.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Any good lawyer will tell you that you can never predict what may happen once you get to court. OJ, Robert Blake, Mickey D's hot coffee - you name it.

IMO, if someone carries into one of these venues, they should understand that they do so at their own risk.

If it's government property, it seems a lot less risky than having a drink with dinner while carrying, especially knowing the test question about legal limits.

Technically, a non-leo, non-licensee who buys a handgun at the show could be guilty of UCW if they don't go directly to their vehicle after purchasing the gun. So you might also say if someone purchases a handgun at one of these venues, they should understand that they do so at their own risk.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:With all the ND's we hear about, I would just let them zip-tie the gun and be done with it.

Here's a better answer.

boomerang wrote: If it's government property, it seems a lot less risky than having a drink with dinner while carrying, especially knowing the test question about legal limits.

Not only is the law on drinking while carrying pretty clear, the DPS explicitly states on their website that it is not illegal to drink while carrying.

Show me where DPS says that it's OK to carry past a 30.06 sign at a gun show, if the government owns the land or building in fee simple, or leases it from someone else who does, and you might pursuade me.

boomerang wrote: Technically, a non-leo, non-licensee who buys a handgun at the show could be guilty of UCW if they don't go directly to their vehicle after purchasing the gun. So you might also say if someone purchases a handgun at one of these venues, they should understand that they do so at their own risk.

Maybe so. But in that case the risk is well known to be infinitesimal or possibly non-existent. Thousands of non-LEO / non-CHL people buy guns at gun shows in TX every year. They do so fully out in the open. Everyone involved knows exactly what they are doing, including any police who may be present. And none have ever been prosecuted for UCW under the circumstances which you describe.

Now if you can show me thousands of people who carry past the 30.06 signs at gun shows, where the government owns or leases the land or building, after informing the gun show operators that they were doing so, and who have not been, a) tossed out on their fannies, b) arrested, or c) prosecuted, then you might pursuade me.

Successfully sneaking a well-concealed gun in and out is not the same thing.

So I will stick by my statement. Absent case law, one should not be comfortable with the assumption that they would win in court if it ever got there.

Buying a handgun is covered by case law:

Kellum v. Texas, 1912. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that upon obtaining a pistol, one may carry it home by the nearest practicable route and not be in violation of the state law prohibiting the carrying of weapons.

Also relevant:

Fitzgerald v. Texas, 1905. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a person who carries a pistol to and from a shop to have it repaired is not in violation of the state law prohibiting the carrying of weapons.

I think that 30.06 signs are not legally binding in government-owned buildings (unless a meeting of a government body is in progress), but I agree with Frankie that it could be very expensive to beat the rap. Furthermore, you can't carry until you do.

- Jim

Mike1951 wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Attendees are frequently asked if they have any ammunition with them. You will either have to lie about having it, return to your vehicle and leave it, or throw it away to be admitted.

In the days before everyone had a cell phone, I rode with a friend to the show. I was carrying a PPK, which I declared and unloaded it to be tied. But I couldn't enter the show with the rounds from the magazine, my friend had gone in ahead, and I had no way to access his truck
.

Yet you can by both ammo and mags inside. Rules are one thing, moronic rules are another. I go straight to the bathroom when I go to shows and unload and pocket the ammo. I have come into situations where I might want to use my ccw for holster fitting or whatever so I go ahead and clear it. No one ever mentions it is not tied since they dont know if it was that way before. Bathroom again before I leave, since some shows have a long walk to the car. I am not walking to or from a show unarmed since BG's know attendees have unloaded weapons and cash on hand.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Now if you can show me thousands of people who carry past the 30.06 signs at gun shows, where the government owns or leases the land or building, after informing the gun show operators that they were doing so, and who have not been, a) tossed out on their fannies, b) arrested, or c) prosecuted, then you might pursuade me.

Successfully sneaking a well-concealed gun in and out is not the same thing.

At every gun show I have ever been to, I have seen people carrying handguns for sale openly in a holster. That's the opposite of well-concealed. I never saw any of them arrested.

I also see people inform the rent-a-cops they have guns. Invariably, the cops give them back their guns and let them in the show. Many of them proceed to conceal those guns in full view of the cops and the cops don't say a word. They don't toss them out of the show. They don't arrest them.

Maybe we're going to very different gun shows.

aardwolf wrote:At every gun show I have ever been to, I have seen people carrying handguns for sale openly in a holster.

I also see people inform the rent-a-cops they have guns. Invariably, the cops give them back their guns and let them in the show. Many of them proceed to conceal those guns in full view of the cops and the cops don't say a word. They don't toss them out of the show. They don't arrest them.

Maybe we're going to very different gun shows.

At the gun shows in the Houston area, the officers are not rent-a-cops, in the sense I use the term. They are either uniformed HPD or, at the Pasadena shows, uniformed Pasadena PD. If you use the term to include off-duty officers who are "moonlighting" in uniform, then YMMV.

aardwolf wrote: At every gun show I have ever been to, I have seen people carrying handguns for sale openly in a holster. That's the opposite of well-concealed. I never saw any of them arrested.

I also see people inform the rent-a-cops they have guns. Invariably, the cops give them back their guns and let them in the show. Many of them proceed to conceal those guns in full view of the cops and the cops don't say a word. They don't toss them out of the show. They don't arrest them.

Maybe we're going to very different gun shows.

Are the shows you are going to posted 30.06?

When you say the cops "give them back their guns", do you mean unloaded and zip tied, or fully loaded? And again, are these shows posted 30.06?

If you mean Houston area then yes they are posted and they do give the guns back ziptied. I asked a class 3 dealer why they post the sign when it is known to be illegal and he said he had never heard that a govt entity couldnt post and didnt beleive me.

rm9792 wrote: If you mean Houston area then yes they are posted and they do give the guns back ziptied.

That's what I would expect.

And that's not what people are talking about here when they are advising people that they can carry past the 30.06 signs because they are unenforceable.

rm9792 wrote: I asked a class 3 dealer why they post the sign when it is known to be illegal and he said he had never heard that a govt entity couldnt post and didnt beleive me.

1) A government entity can post. But the signs are not legally enforceable.

2) At a gun show being held in some kind of government-owned location (where the show operator is renting or leasing the premesis from the government owner), it is the show operator that is generally the one posting, not the government.

There is no case law as to whether such postings are enforceable.

There is a lot of opinion on this board that they are not enforceable.

Then there is my opinion that they are enforceable.

Since it seems obvious that the show operators and their security personnel share my opinion, right or wrong, it also seems obvious that if someone were "caught" carrying on the premesis they would be, a) tossed out on their fannies, b) arrested, and possibly, c) prosecuted.

Then they would get to be the "test case."

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Since it seems obvious that the show operators and their security personnel share my opinion, right or wrong, it also seems obvious that if someone were "caught" carrying on the premesis they would be, a) tossed out on their fannies, b) arrested, and possibly, c) prosecuted.

This is your assumption. I suspect it has far more to do with keeping insurance available. We also know that some governmental agencies post unenforceable 30.06 signs, so the mere presence of a sign says nothing about whether the poster believes it is enforceable. This is much like the "Not Responsible for Accident" signs we used to see frequently. They were absolutely meaningless, but if they tricked someone into not filing suit, then they achieved the poster's goal, whether or not they were enforceable.


Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Since it seems obvious that the show operators and their security personnel share my opinion, right or wrong, it also seems obvious that if someone were "caught" carrying on the premesis they would be, a) tossed out on their fannies, b) arrested, and possibly, c) prosecuted.

This is your assumption. I suspect it has far more to do with keeping insurance available. We also know that some governmental agencies post unenforceable 30.06 signs, so the mere presence of a sign says nothing about whether the poster believes it is enforceable. This is much like the "Not Responsible for Accident" signs we used to see frequently. They were absolutely meaningless, but if they tricked someone into not filing suit, then they achieved the poster's goal, whether or not they were enforceable.


Chas.

Good point Charles. We use release waivers for balloon flights, mainly because our insurance requires us to. However, by signing the waiver it only means the individual(s) say they understood and accepted the normal risks associated with a balloon flight; it does not release us from a negligent act as pilot or crew. Even without negligence, we can still be sued if someone is injured or killed, and we and the insurance companies know it.

If the gun shows post a 30.06 and a CHL'er ignores it and has a ND, even if the sign was not valid it might pull some weight with a jury as to the person disregarding the notice. Hard to tell without test cases.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: so the mere presence of a sign says nothing about whether the poster believes it is enforceable.

You're right. I was making an assumption there.

But I still think that the operators and their hired security people, whether sworn cops on detail or private security guards, would act to enforce the "no guns" policy if a situation presented itself.

By that I mean they would (more or less):

1) Zip tie or otherwise secure any firearms brought in to the facility.
2) Forbid people from carrying loaded guns inside the facility should they have reason to believe that someone might be carrying.
3) Order a person who they find carrying to leave the facility.
4) Prosecute for tresspass if the person refused to leave.

Bottom line is that the person involved could very well become a "test case." And since we all agree that there is no case law covering this situation, it is inherently uncertain how the case would come out in the end.

I certainly would not advise someone to take "comfort" in the fact that they would win in court, which is what prompted my response.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

boomerang wrote: If it's government property, it seems a lot less risky than having a drink with dinner while carrying, especially knowing the test question about legal limits.

Not only is the law on drinking while carrying pretty clear, the DPS explicitly states on their website that it is not illegal to drink while carrying.

Oh, in that case, the State of Texas explicitly states on their website that 30.06 does not apply on government property unless it's off-limits in Section 46.


§ 30.06.(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.

boomerang wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

boomerang wrote: If it's government property, it seems a lot less risky than having a drink with dinner while carrying, especially knowing the test question about legal limits.

Not only is the law on drinking while carrying pretty clear, the DPS explicitly states on their website that it is not illegal to drink while carrying.

Oh, in that case, the State of Texas explicitly states on their website that 30.06 does not apply on government property unless it's off-limits in Section 46.

§ 30.06.(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.

Sure. But it doesn't define exactly what property "owned or leased by a government entity" is. Specifically, the question of whether someone who leases property from a government entity can enforceably post it has never been litigated. So we can all have opinions as to what a proper outcome would be. But in the meantime, the people who have the keys to the facilities in question, and who are hiring the detail cops and security and instructing them as to what to do, are posting them and are enforcing their rules, policies, whatever.

And if you are caught violating those rules, policies, etc., you will be ordered to leave and/or prosecuted. If prosecuted, you will be the "test case."

IANAL. And I do not claim to know what the "correct" legal outcome would be. But there seem to be a number of other "NAL's" who give the impression that they do know the correct legal interpretation of this situation, even to the point of advising others to take comfort that they would win of it got to court.

I think that is bad advice.

I also think that right or wrong, if someone openly violates the posting or policy at one of these places, they will get tossed out and/or prosecuted.

Am I wrong about this? Show me.

In contrast having one drink will not cause a normal person to exhibit responses that would meet the legal standard of PI. TXI articulated this standard more precisely than I can in an earlier thread. It's not just some cop's opinion. There are specific physical and physiological symptoms that need to be observed and articulated to meet the standard for PI. And PI has been litigated many, many times. So there is all kinds of case law there.

So I would feel a lot more comfortable defending myself from some trumped up charge of PI after having a beer, than I would defending myself in a test case after getting thrown out of a venue (owned by the government) and posted by a private business operating on the site that is holding a 250 year lease.

Now, I'm going to go out and load some ammo. IDPA at Texas Tactical this Saturday. If the weather is good, I'm gonna be there.