TexasCHLforum.com

Oh GOODY!!! Another sign thread. I think I will just lurk on this one.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Oh GOODY!!! Another sign thread. I think I will just lurk on this one.

Too Late!

Seems to me that an arrest under the 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) would not fly unless a person was told to leave and did not do so or was banned from the premises and came back. A CHL holder with a firearm in the non-secure area arrested under this law would walk.

Of course a police officer could arrest anyone at any time for anything. Doesn’t mean it would stick. I don’t think I would like to be the one that got arrested in order to educate these officers.

C-dub wrote: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.

The 30.05 sign is not valid and enforceable, because the statute PC 30.05 says:

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.
...

Yes, a "defense to prosecution"... just like carrying anywhere with a CHL was before 1997.

Actually, you could have a decent argument that 30.05 for CHL is made inapplicable for government property by the operation of 30.06, but it's definitely not prosecutable. And anyway the DAL cop told Jim that 30.06 was what he would arrest for, and that's definitely inapplicable on government property.

VoiceofReason wrote:Seems to me that an arrest under the 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) would not fly unless a person was told to leave and did not do so or was banned from the premises and came back. A CHL holder with a firearm in the non-secure area arrested under this law would walk.

I would like to think so.

VoiceofReason wrote:Of course a police officer could arrest anyone at any time for anything. Doesn’t mean it would stick. I don’t think I would like to be the one that got arrested in order to educate these officers.

My point exactly.

ScottDLS wrote:

C-dub wrote: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.

The 30.05 sign is not valid and enforceable, because the statute PC 30.05 says:

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.
...

Yes, a "defense to prosecution"... just like carrying anywhere with a CHL was before 1997.

Actually, you could have a decent argument that 30.05 for CHL is made inapplicable for government property by the operation of 30.06, but it's definitely not prosecutable. And anyway the DAL cop told Jim that 30.06 was what he would arrest for, and that's definitely inapplicable on government property.

I didn't make my point very clearly. I agree with your assessment Scott. I meant to say that it was valid and enforceable, but to those that it actually would apply to. I also missed the particular point where Jim said that he was told they would arrest someone for a 30.06 violation even when there were no 30.06 signs because they believed an entire airport was off limits by default.

jimlongley wrote: 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.

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.

Sorry Jim, I was not curious about whether it would offend you, but rather yours and anyone else's opinion of the possible futility and definite identifying myself as a CHL holder to an LEO and parent of a friend of my daughter's. I lean towards not trying to discuss this with him because of the negative possibilities. Once I've told him, if he were not pro-CHL, I have little doubt that every other parent of any of my daughter's classmates and maybe even the school might be told that I carry a gun. Although the negative's outweigh the positives for me I understand that there would be a greater positive result for all CHL holders if LE would correctly interpret these statutes and not threaten us with arrest without cause.

ScottDLS wrote: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...).

Scott,

There's one big difference. Based on the conversation posted here, the LEO's now have been told the sign is not valid. They can pretend not to know the law but they have been told.

ScottDLS wrote:And anyway the DAL cop told Jim that 30.06 was what he would arrest for, and that's definitely inapplicable on government property.

I'm sorry I missed this before - the DAL LEOs did not tell me they would arrest for 30.06, DAL is posted with the 30.05 signs that I have posted pics of here many times, and they stated that it would be by authority of those signs that they would make the arrest.

I did get one of them a little perturbed with me as we sat drinking coffee one day, when I asked him where the airport's purple stripes were. I was purposely misquoting the law, but he didn't know it, and when I pointed his deficiency out along with pointing out that 30.05 (f) negated the sign even with the "special" language used at DAL.

And there are LEOs who feel that not all government property is inapplicable. One DFW officer told me flat out that because it was an airport it was exempt from the government property provision and that arrests would be made without the necessiity for signs. At the time I was running a test, waiting for my carry on bag to come through the x-ray, with a replica of a .380 pistol in it. The screener passed the test, but I would have flunked the LEO.

Tamie wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: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...).

Scott,

There's one big difference. Based on the conversation posted here, the LEO's now have been told the sign is not valid. They can pretend not to know the law but they have been told.

Actually, there are no signs at DFW, but my original post was and topic title was for DAL, so I acknowledge your point. Now about the Eagles jerseys...

Jim, I'm sensing that you were in a position to set them straight yet they remained steadfast in their policy.

C-dub wrote:Jim, I'm sensing that you were in a position to set them straight yet they remained steadfast in their policy.

Well, let's put it this way, despite my uniform and expertise, they remained steadfast.