TexasCHLforum.com

locke_n_load wrote:1. Where in the penal code, if anywhere, does it state anything about written permission over ruling a 30.06 sign? I agree that written permission should cover his bases but maybe that's not how the code reads. I know a school can give permission.<br abp="410">2. I still don't see how a non complaint sign can be binding (no Spanish), when it is very clear that you must have the specific language.

Regarding your #1, maybe this?:

"PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;..."

I don't know if that would or would not apply to a government meeting, but that's probably where the idea would come from.

Regarding your #2, I agree with you, based on this:

"(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English
and Spanish;"

Seems pretty straight forward to me. But then, I'm just a dumb old country boy, so what do I know?

Reading through the case, this sounds a lot like a political lynching. County commissioners determine the sheriff's department budget, manpower/equipment requests, etc..
This sounds like the Sheriff, had a bone to pick with the commissioner, so he warned him not to bring his gun, the commissioner agreed, and then went and got a judge to write a letter to authorize him to carry. The Sheriff, or one of his deputies, then arrested the commissioner at the next meeting. The letter was ratified at the next meeting, which would have caused the charges to be dropped. But at the following meeting, the letter's authority was rescinded, . This sounds like the Sheriff got mad, colluded with the other commissioners and got his way. The District Attorney even recused himself from the entire process. JMHO

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Wow. It sounds like these judges are just making up the law on the fly (or at least amending the law on the fly). Terrible ruling. Terrible precedent.

That's exactly what I would expect from Al Scoggins. I had numerous dealings with him in the 378th District Court in Ellis County over the years, and it's well understood that the letter of the law has no place in his courtroom.

Jusme wrote:Reading through the case, this sounds a lot like a political lynching. County commissioners determine the sheriff's department budget, manpower/equipment requests, etc..
This sounds like the Sheriff, had a bone to pick with the commissioner, so he warned him not to bring his gun, the commissioner agreed, and then went and got a judge to write a letter to authorize him to carry. The Sheriff, or one of his deputies, then arrested the commissioner at the next meeting. The letter was ratified at the next meeting, which would have caused the charges to be dropped. But at the following meeting, the letter's authority was rescinded, . This sounds like the Sheriff got mad, colluded with the other commissioners and got his way. The District Attorney even recused himself from the entire process. JMHO

This sounds incredibly personal. It also sounds like it would never happen in any other person's life again.

SewTexas wrote:

Jusme wrote:Reading through the case, this sounds a lot like a political lynching. County commissioners determine the sheriff's department budget, manpower/equipment requests, etc..
This sounds like the Sheriff, had a bone to pick with the commissioner, so he warned him not to bring his gun, the commissioner agreed, and then went and got a judge to write a letter to authorize him to carry. The Sheriff, or one of his deputies, then arrested the commissioner at the next meeting. The letter was ratified at the next meeting, which would have caused the charges to be dropped. But at the following meeting, the letter's authority was rescinded, . This sounds like the Sheriff got mad, colluded with the other commissioners and got his way. The District Attorney even recused himself from the entire process. JMHO

This sounds incredibly personal. It also sounds like it would never happen in any other person's life again.

Unless they irritated the wrong person. That's the danger of living in a totalitarian dictatorship, aka certain small towns throughout the U.S.

Where does he get the power to confiscate, and presumably keep the firearms? If arrested, they will obviously take the guns, but he shouldn't forfeit them permanently

sjfcontrol wrote:Where does he get the power to confiscate, and presumably keep the firearms? If arrested, they will obviously take the guns, but he shouldn't forfeit them permanently

Maybe it was civil asset forfeiture? Under that law, he could have taken all of the council member's assets and forced him to sue to get them back. Happens every day in this country with a variety of assets, including guns, but mostly cash and vehicles.

Women ain't nuthin. The saying should be - Hell hath no fury like a small town sheriff and / or judge.

I know it's been mentioned, but I think that it bears repeating, the cited case is not what was described in the OP (person charged and convicted for walking past a gun buster sign). This is a totally different animal.
Although I disagree with the verdict, many on this forum, myself included, have stated on many occasions that we would not walk past an English only "30.06" sign or one with slightly incorrect wording, or one with letters that aren't exactly 1" tall. This case is a perfect example of why.

Surprising how easy they've made it to turn anyone into a criminal. On second thought maybe it's not so surprising.

sjfcontrol wrote:Where does he get the power to confiscate, and presumably keep the firearms? If arrested, they will obviously take the guns, but he shouldn't forfeit them permanently

I found it in the convoluted decisions. They were able to convince the court, that since he was "carrying" the guns, it constituted "use" of the guns in the commission of a crime. So they were able to gain forfeiture.

Jusme wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Where does he get the power to confiscate, and presumably keep the firearms? If arrested, they will obviously take the guns, but he shouldn't forfeit them permanently

I found it in the convoluted decisions. They were able to convince the court, that since he was "carrying" the guns, it constituted "use" of the guns in the commission of a crime. So they were able to gain forfeiture.

After reading Gray's dissent it's hard to believe the 10th ruled against the appeal. The temporary DA didn't even have standing to try the case per Gray. This guy evidently had made some powerful enemies. It appears it's been filed with the SCOTx.
http://data.scotxblog.com/scotx/no/16-1020

jmra wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

jmra wrote:
I would challenge the person who told the story to cite the case. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

DPS LTC Instructor Instructor.
And no that is not a typo.

Then he shouldn't have any problem citing the case.

No trouble at all, assuming he's an honest instructor, rather than pushing an agenda.

Update regarding the Commissioner Tafel case: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia. ... 4dd0fee9e3

It appears he appealed the forfeiture of his guns to the Supreme Court of Texas last August. It is a very convoluted case and the like goes to a lonnnng file with many briefs, but anyway it appears he is arguing that 1) the forfeiture was incorrect and should be handled through the Criminal Court of Appeals (//) and 2) if the SCoTX is the right venue, he should get his guns back.

locke_n_load wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:36 pmI was told of a case where a person was charged for carrying past a gun-buster sign and was convicted, I believe for violating 30.06, since the intent of the sign was clear.

Did you ever find your case?

I don't know why I looked, but I think Tafel got his guns back.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether mere possession of a firearm was the “use” of the firearm that would trigger mandatory forfeiture. The Court held it was not...
Texas law requires mandatory forfeiture of a firearm if the conviction involved the “use” of that firearm. Article 18.19(e). The State argued that Tafel possessed and thus “used” his guns...
After reviewing several previous decisions interpreting the term “use,” the Court concluded that “use” of a firearm does not apply when the possession of the firearm itself is the “gravamen” or sole basis for the underlying offense...
the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, rendered judgment that Tafel’s guns are not subject to forfeiture

Citation for completeness, but not an interesting case. Tafel v. State, 536 S.W.3d 517, 61 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 189 (Tex. 2017)

acronym 6/7/2019 3:18 PM