TexasCHLforum.com

As of Sept 1 last year or this year coming up in a month? Elaborate on "more teeth" I know currently, in some places, like Houston, DAs like Chuck Rosenthal (or is it Dick Rosenthal, I forget his first name) is persecuting people for carrying in the car anyway even though the law now says the burden of proof is on the policeman to prove you aren't traveling.

As to your first comment, does that mean also that if I walk into a church with a CHL and gun (as I am allowed to do so by law) and it turns out that the church also has a Private school attached to it making the entire church campus a school that I have to given notice of this fact by a security or personel of the church before I am considered in violation of the law? (I.E. Second Baptist Church Houston)

Doug.38PR wrote:As of Sept 1 last year or this year coming up in a month? Elaborate on "more teeth" I know currently, in some places, like Houston, DAs like Chuck Rosenthal (or is it Dick Rosenthal, I forget his first name) is persecuting people for carrying in the car anyway even though the law now says the burden of proof is on the policeman to prove you aren't traveling.

This year. And Rosenthal prosecutes, not persecute.

There have been numerous threads and posts about the new law. here is but one http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=8837

As to your first comment, does that mean also that if I walk into a church with a CHL and gun (as I am allowed to do so by law) and it turns out that the church also has a Private school attached to it making the entire church campus a school that I have to given notice of this fact by a security or personel of the church before I am considered in violation of the law? (I.E. Second Baptist Church Houston)

Can you clarify the question? Under 46.035 a church must be posted 30.06 for you to be prohibited from carrying there. Under no circumstances does anyone have to tell you that you cannot carry on the premises of a school. Carry is prohibited under law UNLESS you have written authorization from the school or there is written regulations allow carry.

I would think that a private school at a church would be a school during the week, and a church on Sunday and during services. IF school was going on while a church function was also in progress, I imagine the school areas are off limits, but unless the sanctuary is used for the school the sanctuary would be OK to carry.

txinvestigator wrote:... Rosenthal prosecutes, not persecute.

That's a matter of opinion. What do you call using the force of law against people who are doing nothing illegal, such as having a concealed revolver in their car?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:... Rosenthal prosecutes, not persecute.

That's a matter of opinion. What do you call using the force of law against people who are doing nothing illegal, such as having a concealed revolver in their car?

- Jim

It is akin to hysteria to call his interpretation of the law Persecution. It is an inflammatory phrase used to illicit a shocking and angry response. You know, sort of like the libtards and gun grabbers due to try to make their points.

Persecution involves harrassing, opressing, or harming people due to their beliefs.

^
And that is exactly what rosenthal is doing, he is in effect harrassing people because they choose to exercise their right under the law and in fact under the right of self defense.

But he doesn't like the law, he doesn't like people being able to carry guns, sooo what does he do? He declares that he is going to have people arrested in spite of the fact that they have a legal right to do so. That's harrassment.

As seamusTX indicated and I indicated in an earlier post, anybody with any good sense knows that someone carrying a gun in their car for defense is a reasonable and normal thing to do. In and of itself it commits no harm to anyone and anybody with any good sense knows this.

So, I say again, with confidence, he is persecuting them, not prosecuting them. Nothing inflamitory mean't by that.

I would think that a private school at a church would be a school during the week, and a church on Sunday and during services. IF school was going on while a church function was also in progress, I imagine the school areas are off limits, but unless the sanctuary is used for the school the sanctuary would be OK to carry.

Well, that's the point. Is your above statement clarified anywhere under the law. I've heard that the entire campus could very well be considered a school just because a portion of the campus has a private school as part of it and ANY school (public or private) according to state law is off limits to carrying.
My church, Second Bapt. Houston, is just this. There is no 30.06 posting, which would lead me, at first to believe I could carry there. BUT, someone (I think he is a LEO that works part time at a local gun range and is either a CHL instructor himself or works with the CHL instructor(s) at the range) told me that I had better not carry over there because they are not only a church, but a school and the entire campus could be considered a school.

I've hasked this question before and gotten mixed replies most of which consist of "I would think...." "It seems to me that if...." etc. pro and con(nothing clarified by law)

What he said. People are being arrested, embarrassed, and compelled to spend money for something that the legislature clearly intended to be legal.

I will be interested in seeing how Mr. Rosenthal reacts to the new law, in which the legislature made its intentions unmistakable to anyone with a functioning brain and rudimentary command of English.

I am incapable of hysteria, since I don't have a uterus.

- Jim

Doug.38PR wrote:^
And that is exactly what rosenthal is doing, he is in effect harrassing people because they choose to exercise their right under the law and in fact under the right of self defense.

But he doesn't like the law, he doesn't like people being able to carry guns, sooo what does he do? He declares that he is going to have people arrested in spite of the fact that they have a legal right to do so. That's harrassment.

As seamusTX indicated and I indicated in an earlier post, anybody with any good sense knows that someone carrying a gun in their car for defense is a reasonable and normal thing to do. In and of itself it commits no harm to anyone and anybody with any good sense knows this.

So, I say again, with confidence, he is persecuting them, not prosecuting them. Nothing inflamitory mean't by that.

Rosenthal can't "have" anyone arrested. All he can do is prOsecute those the police arrest. He is not out beating, corralling, arresting, harrassing, (or any other verb ) people who like guns, believe in the 2nd, or anything else.

I would think that a private school at a church would be a school during the week, and a church on Sunday and during services. IF school was going on while a church function was also in progress, I imagine the school areas are off limits, but unless the sanctuary is used for the school the sanctuary would be OK to carry.

Well, that's the point. Is your above statement clarified anywhere under the law.

It is not. We have to try to obey the law using the written law and common sense. Thats the best I can do.

seamusTX wrote:What he said. People are being arrested, embarrassed, and compelled to spend money for something that the legislature clearly intended to be legal.

and Rosenthal didn't do any of it, if it has actually happened.

I am incapable of hysteria, since I don't have a uterus.

- Jim

***runs and hides from incoming***

How did this get so FAR off topic?

txinvestigator wrote:Rosenthal can't "have" anyone arrested. All he can do is prOsecute those the police arrest.

I think that the DA publicly announcing what he will accept charges for does have the effect of encouraging those arrests.

llwatson wrote:How did this get so FAR off topic?

Not for sure, but I think they will take it back since you brought it to their attention.

Doug.38PR wrote:
Wow, they sure make things complicated. I do remember the CHL instructor going over all that in the CHL class.

They make it so complicated, that it leaves the way open for innocent people to get hurt by the law. For instance, suppose I am driving down I-45 and am pulled over by a DPS officer for having a busted tail light. We are right next to Huntsville Prison 900 ft away 30 minutes before an execution is about to take place. I hand him my chl and dl when he approaches.
That is of course far fetched, but not impossible.

TXI "That is not a problem; To be prosecuted the person carring a handgun must have received notice that he could not carry there. "

I wasn't aware that the prohibittion against carrying within 1000 ft of the place of execution required notice.

Dave B.

bauerdj wrote:Doug.38PR wrote:
Wow, they sure make things complicated. I do remember the CHL instructor going over all that in the CHL class.

They make it so complicated, that it leaves the way open for innocent people to get hurt by the law. For instance, suppose I am driving down I-45 and am pulled over by a DPS officer for having a busted tail light. We are right next to Huntsville Prison 900 ft away 30 minutes before an execution is about to take place. I hand him my chl and dl when he approaches.
That is of course far fetched, but not impossible.

TXI "That is not a problem; To be prosecuted the person carring a handgun must have received notice that he could not carry there. "

I wasn't aware that the prohibittion against carrying within 1000 ft of the place of execution required notice.

Dave B.

Maybe I my memory has it wrong, but I believe the facility is conciderably more than 1000ft away from I45

It probably is more than 1000 ft off the interstate, it was more of a hypothetical question for an even broader point.

I remember seeing a sign in a chili's over on Hwy 6 near Westheimer that had a 50% alchohol sign. I even posted a thread here about it. The sign has since been removed and replaced with the "unlicensed possession of a firearm..." sign.

There is a restauraunt up in Jefferson, TX (Marion County) across from the courthouse (can't think of the name of it) that sells food and alcoholic beverages that about a year ago had a sign that said "the possession of a firearm licensed or otherwise on these premisis is a felony offense with a penalty....." I had to walk all the way back down to my car to put my gun away. The sign was nighter a 50% nor a 30.06 nor a "unlicensed possession" sign. Since the place sold both food and alchohol (we went in there for hamburgers) I figured the sign must be in error or outdated, but took no chances.
I drove by there the other day and I THINK I noticed the sign was replaced by an "unlicensed possession of a firearm" sign.

What's the story on that other sign I saw a year ago? is that an old sign based on an older law?

As for the Rosenthal side argument, texasinvestigator, if you had read the FRONT PAGE headlines of the Houston Chronicle a year ago or so about him declaring that he is going to have his LEOs in the city of Houston to continue to arrest those found with handguns in their car's and he will prosecute them in spite of the new law and it's intent you would see that persecution is accurate to say. He stated that he was going to defy the legislature and do what he wanted anyway. He made a BIG to do about it. Trust me, Rosenthal made it perfectly clear that he is no friend of the RTKBA.

Basically, if there is any question, it is better to err on the side of the law. If there is any question how 2nd Baptist Houston could be perceived, then I wouldn't risk the possibility of having "Criminal Tresspass by a CHL Holder" charges brought on me. From the way things are sounding about Rosenthal, I wouldn't be surprised if he interpreted the campus to be a school at all times, not just on weekdays.

Although it is my full understanding that if the posted sign (from a year ago) is not the 30.06 or 51% sign, you are generally ok to carry, except where explicitly prohibited by the Concealed Handgun law.

As I stated above, if there is any question to the legality of carrying even with a valid CHL, you may be better off leaving it in the car. I'm not willing to give up my priviledges because of someone else's interpretation.