TexasCHLforum.com

And the GVMM issue has been discussed until the cows came home. Just search this form and find out.

The chief had once said they would still arrest anyone discovered carrying in there even though the wording on those monstrous signs are incorrect. Then years later one of our own members here got that clarified and the chief amended his position to say that it would be up to each officer whether to arrest or not. Now, once you remove the political junk from above, most officers know they are on shaky ground at best with those signs being incorrect and all.

chuck j wrote:Pretty good posts and replys but I dont really understand why so many want to 'test' the system ,seems childish to me , business's , schools others have rights too. We have gained more privilege in a short while than many special groups do in a lifetime . Testing our CHL rights will be very counterproductive , so far we have set an excellent example in our behavior and we are actually a privileged group of Texans . We are steadly making more progress and I see 'testing' or pushing the limits as being self-destructive . Look at the new amendments to the requirements as to carry and renewal , it's crazy to jeopardize our good record . I just do not have a hard time working around the present restraints set on me carrying and as time goes on our carry privilege's will grow .

If I get notice, I'll stop carrying (or stop going). I agree with your sentiment - I'm not looking for a service entrance to sneak in. These are major entrances on every side and angle of the shopping center.

To engage in a little friendly banter, I do have a fundamental disagreement that businesses or other entities have any property rights that govern what I have concealed on my own person. I've gone into it a handful of times, and several on here that I respect disagree with me. I'd wholeheartedly agree if the subject were open carry or failure to conceal. . . but the government should not assist in enforcing their ability to ban me for something they can't see and is none of their business. If a business determines that I'm carrying and asks me to leave, the law should help them remove me if I refuse. That is trespassing. Outside of that, CHL bans by businesses should be as enforceable under the law as store policies banning customers from wearing green underwear. . . they can state it and print it on a sign, but if they have no way to detect it, they won't know who to ask to leave.

I do appreciate how far we've come with the CHL battle in this state from time to time. Then I get outraged and realize how restrictive we still are, which states are lapping us, and that the world is still upside down if we're fighting inch by inch to regain vestiges of a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

I am definitely not one to play fast and loose with the law.

Good post. . . you raise valid concerns.

You seem to have conviction , why dont you 'TEST' them , thanks ! Oh forgot , not valid concerns ...........common sense .

I'm through , have a great evening .

chuck j wrote:You seem to have conviction , why dont you 'TEST' them , thanks ! Oh forgot , not valid concerns ...........common sense .

No interest in testing anything. My interest is in abiding by the law. As far as I am concerned, having never received effective notice at Grapevine Mills Malls as detailed in the CHL law, that is all I am doing.

By "TEST them" are you suggesting I be reckless? Flaunt my gun? Taunt an officer with my license? I wouldn't do any of these. They are not responsible nor do they uphold my duty to remain concealed.

Please clarify. If you mean, "Carry anyway," that's exactly what I do. My scenario is not one built on a small typo in an otherwise valid sign, or letters that are 1/10" too small. I'm saying that I have NEVER SEEN A SIGN! I do feel that is different. I have walked past obviously non-compliant signs before, but that is not what I'm discussing in this case.

Where do we get this standard that we must circumnavigate every building on a hunt for signs before entering, endlessly research their establishment online before visiting, or call for a permission slip? How much research should we do?

The law did not put the burden to seek out notice on the CHLer. . . the onus is on the business to provide the notice.

This has not been done during my visits. YMMV.

The only way I can truly "Test" it is to:
- Actually be there
- Use my favorite entrance(s) and not see a sign, so I carry inside
- Have some incident occur that leads me to display my firearm (valid self defense or unintentional disclosure) or for a peace officer to request my ID (witness to a crime?)
- Have an officer who listens to my story of how I got there and, instead of telling me to go with oral notice, decides to arrest me
- Have a DA who views all of the facts of the case and decides it needs to be prosecuted

ALL of these things would have to happen for somebody to become a "test case". I just don't think it's likely. I definitely am not hoping for any of them to happen, especially the failure to conceal, real self defense situation, or witnessing a serious crime. Especially on my <1 trip each year. Proactively looking to be a test case is unwise and, within the law, nearly impossible.

I'd tell anybody who wants to ensure they never see a judge from a defendant's chair that carrying a gun is likely not for them. Any of us could follow all of the rules, be engaged in legitimate self defense, and end up in that hot seat one day having to explain it to 12 other citizens.

chuck j wrote:I'm through , have a great evening .

Same to you!

cb1000rider wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:I think as a community, we should form a 'pact' to support anyone who becomes one of our "test cases" on things like this, and the others that we know exist (e.g., carrying in a govt owned building that's posted 30.06, etc.).
I know I can't afford the fight. Or if I do, I can temporarily, but it would destroy my daughter's college fund.

I would definitely put resources into a case for a respected member here, who I believed was a true test case (and not causing trouble).

1) If you're serious, a fund needs to be started now, not after an event occurs.
2) Here's a test case that you'll love - and as far as I can see the guy was completely within his rights. I believe he's extremely lucky because he had access to recording equipment so there isn't going to be a lot of LEO "expert" testimony that isn't backed by actual camera / recordings. If you're serious about 2nd amendment in Texas and serious about supporting someone else who has had trouble, consider supporting his cause:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... rifle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is video there so you can decide for yourself. He was originally stopped for open-carry of a rifle, arrested for "rudely displaying" (made up charge). I don't know what they actually charged him with after getting him to the PD... He was a CHL and was carrying a handgun in addition to the rifle.

I hope there is a big civil pay-day in it for him, but that's just my opinion.

Good thoughts about the timing of starting something like that.
AS for #2, I heard him on the radio, and then watched the video, etc. I wouldn't call that a test case because it doesn't involve CHL laws and clarifying things like "conspicuously to the public", but it's definitely a 2nd Amendment issue.
Supposedly, the dash cam video will be what really wins the case for him. He said that he cannot release the dash cam footage, so we can't see it, but that footage will show the officer basically lunging at the rifle without warning or asking for it. That's when he got upset, and his son started recording the video that we can call see online.

Yall are missing the reason of this post.

Since there is a police sub-station inside that is leased by the City of Grapevine, shouldn't this effectively negate the 30.06 sign just as if you were to walk into city hall and it was posted?

RPBrown wrote:Yall are missing the reason of this post.

Since there is a police sub-station inside that is leased by the City of Grapevine, shouldn't this effectively negate the 30.06 sign just as if you were to walk into city hall and it was posted?

No, because they only lease that small space.

Back a long time ago, before there was a TexasCHLforum, I wrote to and emailed a bunch of the chains and stores that inhabit GMM and told them why they would not be getting my business, the reactions, those few who bothered to answer, ranged from "bye, don't let the door hit ya" to "please reconsider and shop in our store because it is not posted." I still don't go there.

fickman wrote:If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

You've been notified (that there is an incorrectly-worded 30.06 sign here, pic that Crossfire took, I could not find the one that I took):

Crossfire wrote:Here ya go.
[ Image ]

PUCKER wrote:
You've been notified (that there is an incorrectly-worded 30.06 sign here, pic that Crossfire took, I could not find the one that I took):

Maybe so but you think Ill really admit I knew the mall was posted? Might as well bring my own set of handcuff to save the officer the trouble. Im sorry but I will lie, play stupid, whatever if it means keeping my butt out of the slammer and losing my CHL. Im too pretty for jail.

nightmare69 wrote:

PUCKER wrote:
You've been notified (that there is an incorrectly-worded 30.06 sign here, pic that Crossfire took, I could not find the one that I took):

Maybe so but you think Ill really admit I knew the mall was posted? Might as well bring my own set of handcuff to save the officer the trouble. Im sorry but I will lie, play stupid, whatever if it means keeping my butt out of the slammer and losing my CHL. Im too pretty for jail.

If you enter knowing the mall was validly posted then you should be arrested and lose your CHL. End of story. I can see no reason you would have an emergency case to enter a legally posted mall and not be able to disarm.

Keith B wrote:If you enter knowing the mall was validly posted then you should be arrested and lose your CHL. End of story.

I agree.

However:
1) The posting that is reportedly there is not valid according to the strict letter of the law
2) I don't know for sure it's posted until I see a sign on my way in

I could see an Internet post today and the mall change management tomorrow and pull all the signs. If I go the day after tomorrow, I'll look for signs when I enter the building. If I see a valid and enforceable one, I either disarm or find some other physical space to occupy.

I am convinced this is responsible, reasonable, and prudent.

Most CHLers out there don't come to this forum and have these discussions. . . if they entered the mall like I do - through a main, high traffic entrance without seeing a sign - their experience would be exactly the same.

fickman wrote:

Keith B wrote:If you enter knowing the mall was validly posted then you should be arrested and lose your CHL. End of story.

I agree.

However:
1) The posting that is reportedly there is not valid according to the strict letter of the law
2) I don't know for sure it's posted until I see a sign on my way in

I could see an Internet post today and the mall change management tomorrow and pull all the signs. If I go the day after tomorrow, I'll look for signs when I enter the building. If I see a valid and enforceable one, I either disarm or find some other physical space to occupy.

I am convinced this is responsible, reasonable, and prudent.

Most CHLers out there don't come to this forum and have these discussions. . . if they entered the mall like I do - through a main, high traffic entrance without seeing a sign - their experience would be exactly the same.

I don't disagree if a locaiton is not validly posted. I have passed non-valid 30.06 signs while armed. However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Keith B wrote:However, anyone who willfully would break the law and carry past a legal sign just for the reason they don't feel like they have to obey it should be arrested and lose their CHL.

Absolutely.

In my perfect world, we'd eventually get rid of this whole 30.06 nonsense, but I know I'm in the minority on that idea. Still, I can dream. It looks like I'm unlikely to ever have enough money for my opinion on that to matter. hahahaha