TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:

Russell wrote:I am confused by the last paragraph:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who
carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental
entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other
place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a
handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is
excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of
the Penal Code.

This seems to say that you CAN carry..??

It appears to me that he is saying two things. The court won't find the government entity liable for the fines and the court won't find the LTC holder guilty of 30.06/30.07 violation.

That's what I see, and I say it's a deal.

So, next time I will OC my G20 to the FW Zoo.

AJSully421 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Russell wrote:I am confused by the last paragraph:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who
carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental
entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other
place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a
handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is
excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of
the Penal Code.

This seems to say that you CAN carry..??

It appears to me that he is saying two things. The court won't find the government entity liable for the fines and the court won't find the LTC holder guilty of 30.06/30.07 violation.

That's what I see, and I say it's a deal.

So, next time I will OC my G20 to the FW Zoo.

And you will proceed to take a ride to the station. No deal.

It doesn't seem to be limited to non-profits.

locke_n_load wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Russell wrote:I am confused by the last paragraph:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who
carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental
entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other
place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a
handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is
excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of
the Penal Code.

This seems to say that you CAN carry..??

It appears to me that he is saying two things. The court won't find the government entity liable for the fines and the court won't find the LTC holder guilty of 30.06/30.07 violation.

That's what I see, and I say it's a deal.

So, next time I will OC my G20 to the FW Zoo.

And you will proceed to take a ride to the station. No deal.

On what charge? 30.05 may not be used because I have a DTP, 30.07 may not be used because their sign is screwed up, plus the city owns the land... I am not carrying the gun to cause alarm, so disorderly does not apply... what else you got?

Cops can't just arrest you for fun. There are consequences for their actions, and they know it.

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Russell wrote:I am confused by the last paragraph:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who
carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental
entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other
place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a
handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is
excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of
the Penal Code.

This seems to say that you CAN carry..??

It appears to me that he is saying two things. The court won't find the government entity liable for the fines and the court won't find the LTC holder guilty of 30.06/30.07 violation.

That's what I see, and I say it's a deal.

So, next time I will OC my G20 to the FW Zoo.

And you will proceed to take a ride to the station. No deal.

On what charge? 30.05 may not be used, 30.07 may not be used... what else you got?

The AG is suggesting the court would rule in your favor however, to rule in your favor, you get the distinct pleasure of becoming case law having been charged with 30.07 violation.

here we go with the police rides again! I'm suprised more people dont "take a ride" for seatbelt violations too!! Cops would much rather arrest, then explain to their boss why they didn't just write a ticket. Cops love extra paperwork!!

I believe a ticket challenge is that the AG is referring to. But thats just my thought...

I think that sometimes we wish we were a little less law abiding. Who else is controlled by signs?
Only the most law abiding group in the State. No one else even has the threat of being ticketed or arrested for disobeying signs, who are not already criminals. We have the distinction of being charged with a crime after we have bent over backwards, allowed a microscopic intrusion into our background, demonstrated our proficiency with a handgun, just to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution, all because someone who has never done any of those things decided we are untrustworthy.
..I'll get down off my soapbox now.....

Jusme wrote:I think that sometimes we wish we were a little less law abiding. Who else is controlled by signs?
Only the most law abiding group in the State. No one else even has the threat of being ticketed or arrested for disobeying signs, who are not already criminals. We have the distinction of being charged with a crime after we have bent over backwards, allowed a microscopic intrusion into our background, demonstrated our proficiency with a handgun, just to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution, all because someone who has never done any of those things decided we are untrustworthy.
..I'll get down off my soapbox now.....

TreyHouston wrote: here we go with the police rides again! I'm suprised more people dont "take a ride" for seatbelt violations too!! Cops would much rather arrest, then explain to their boss why they didn't just write a ticket. Cops love extra paperwork!!

I believe a ticket challenge is that the AG is referring to. But thats just my thought...

The fear of being arrested for violating no laws runs strong on this board. Unlike some here I believe that our LEO's are generally fairly intelligent folks who for the most part actually know the laws they are tasked to enforce.

The analogy of a seatbelt violation is not even the case here. This would be like getting arrested for something that isn't a violation of any law because the LEO incorrectly believed that you violated a law that carries a maximum penalty of a $200 fine. That combination would require some severe negligence on the part of the LEO. On the off chance that this were to actually happen, I'm sure your civil settlement would compensate you for any pain and suffering.

Jusme wrote:I think that sometimes we wish we were a little less law abiding. Who else is controlled by signs?
Only the most law abiding group in the State. No one else even has the threat of being ticketed or arrested for disobeying signs, who are not already criminals. We have the distinction of being charged with a crime after we have bent over backwards, allowed a microscopic intrusion into our background, demonstrated our proficiency with a handgun, just to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution, all because someone who has never done any of those things decided we are untrustworthy.
..I'll get down off my soapbox now.....

Isn't it almost impossible to get trespassing charges to stick if somebody comes onto your property even though you have a fence and no trespassing signs?

TXBO wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Russell wrote:I am confused by the last paragraph:

A court would likely conclude that a license holder who
carries a handgun on property that is owned by a governmental
entity but leased to a private entity and that is not a premises or other
place from which the license holder is prohibited from carrying a
handgun under sections 46.03 or 46.035 of the Penal Code is
excepted from the offenses in subsections 30.06(a) and 30.07(a) of
the Penal Code.

This seems to say that you CAN carry..??

It appears to me that he is saying two things. The court won't find the government entity liable for the fines and the court won't find the LTC holder guilty of 30.06/30.07 violation.

That's what I see, and I say it's a deal.

So, next time I will OC my G20 to the FW Zoo.

And you will proceed to take a ride to the station. No deal.

On what charge? 30.05 may not be used, 30.07 may not be used... what else you got?

The AG is suggesting the court would rule in your favor however, to rule in your favor, you get the distinct pleasure of becoming case law having been charged with 30.07 violation.

I thought the AG already gave a statement on the FW zoo after complaints were filed about their 30.06 posting. Has there been an update since then?

No ruling on FW zoo yet that I've heard of.

ScottDLS wrote:No ruling on FW zoo yet that I've heard of.

My mistake. Ruling was for the Dallas Zoo.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... as_Zoo.pdf

TexasTornado wrote:
I thought the AG already gave a statement on the FW zoo after complaints were filed about their 30.06 posting. Has there been an update since then?

Seems like this ruling letter is the pretext to decisions coming out about the FW and Houston Zoos.

They can post signs, but they cannot call the cops to enforce them.

It is always a soup sandwich when anti-gun liberals who refuse to follow the law get involved.

AJSully421 wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:
I thought the AG already gave a statement on the FW zoo after complaints were filed about their 30.06 posting. Has there been an update since then?

Seems like this ruling letter is the pretext to decisions coming out about the FW and Houston Zoos.

They can post signs, but they cannot call the cops to enforce them.

It is always a soup sandwich when anti-gun liberals who refuse to follow the law get involved.

Soup sandwich.... Is that like a French dip? Or more like French onion soup?? Great... Now I'm hungry.