TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

rotor wrote:There is an updated one listed as Oct.2015 with fewer errors but it is too large for me to attach here.

What errors?

Don't know all of them which is why there is a newer version. Look in the back about hospital and nursing home carry if you have a CHL. This says not allowed. Law says needs a 30.06. Oct 2015 version has not corrected this one yet. All of this is complicated and easy to make errors with. It is a very good document though.

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

Keith B wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

And that is correct.

nightmare69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

And that is correct.

It's been a long day, love working the holidays. So a LTC holder can carry in Six Flags as long as it's not posted? I though amusement parks were off limits just like race tracks and professional sporting events. They don't have to be posted.

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

Papa_Tiger wrote:Hmm... Interesting that the question on page 14 "What federal law governs a police officer’s authority to question a person who is legally carrying a firearm?" discusses when an officer can legally question/detain someone is completely undermined by a very dishonest reading of the law in the question on page 15 "Are there specific rules relating to whether a police officer can question or disarm a person who is openly carrying a holstered handgun in public?"

The disarming portion of it, I understand (IMO it should be rare that an officer feels the NEED to disarm a license holder "is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual"). The previous entry discussion of PC 411.205 is a completely dishonest interpretation of the law that was PRESCRIPTIVE for how an encounter with an officer when legally detained and required to provide ID should play out. PC 411.205 in no way grants authority to the officer to demand the ID in the first place.

It seems based on the way this is being presented is that the trainers are glossing over the first question and then dishonestly and intentionally misinterpreting PC 411.205 to give authority where no authority is granted by the law.

If this is so, I'm EXTREMELY disappointed by the way this training is being presented to officers and hope that it is quickly fixed in the next legislative session.

Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

TXhntr88 wrote:Here's a link to an updated paper dated December 22, 2015

http://www.tml.org/p/Dec%202015%20QA%20 ... INIONS.pdf

locke_n_load wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

And that is correct.

It's been a long day, love working the holidays. So a LTC holder can carry in Six Flags as long as it's not posted? I though amusement parks were off limits just like race tracks and professional sporting events. They don't have to be posted.

Correct. Same goes for hospitals and churches.
See 46.035, after all the text for the afforementioned places, you will see:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

C-dub wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

And that is correct.

It's been a long day, love working the holidays. So a LTC holder can carry in Six Flags as long as it's not posted? I though amusement parks were off limits just like race tracks and professional sporting events. They don't have to be posted.

Correct. Same goes for hospitals and churches.
See 46.035, after all the text for the afforementioned places, you will see:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

The same does go for churches, but this pdf doesn't say that. It also says that a CHL/LTC cannot carry concealed on the campus of an institution of higher education without distinguishing between in buildings or just walking around outside of them. That's a big difference and huge error IMO that may cause someone a huge problem. It has this in the text and the chart format.

nightmare69 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:
I noticed it says one can carry in an amusement parks as long as it's not posted. Good catch.

And that is correct.

It's been a long day, love working the holidays. So a LTC holder can carry in Six Flags as long as it's not posted? I though amusement parks were off limits just like race tracks and professional sporting events. They don't have to be posted.

Correct. Same goes for hospitals and churches.
See 46.035, after all the text for the afforementioned places, you will see:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

The same does go for churches, but this pdf doesn't say that. It also says that a CHL/LTC cannot carry concealed on the campus of an institution of higher education without distinguishing between in buildings or just walking around outside of them. That's a big difference and huge error IMO that may cause someone a huge problem. It has this in the text and the chart format.

The updated version corrects this.

mojo84 wrote: Several current and former members have strongly argued reasonable suspicion other than carrying isn't required. Since these folks would be on the hook for funding a defense and paying a judgrment, I think their opinion is pretty well founded.