TexasCHLforum.com

wil wrote: Meaning he lost his CHL? Or an unintentional uncovering of his firearm and possession of a CHL didn't help to diffuse the situation? Was he not asked if he had a CHL and/or the officers didn't ask as to what or how the initial call got started?
It seems a bit over the top for a response if he simply accidentally uncovered his firearm by getting out of a chair, the braindead soccermom starting trouble needlessly notwithstanding. I can understand the result if someone is stupidly playing 'show & tell' however didn't the responding police ask when they arrived as to what was going on, then realize his shirt simply rode up and mrs suburbanite braindead threw a stupid fit?

Only in a perfect world.

tomtexan wrote:

wil wrote: Meaning he lost his CHL? Or an unintentional uncovering of his firearm and possession of a CHL didn't help to diffuse the situation? Was he not asked if he had a CHL and/or the officers didn't ask as to what or how the initial call got started?
It seems a bit over the top for a response if he simply accidentally uncovered his firearm by getting out of a chair, the braindead soccermom starting trouble needlessly notwithstanding. I can understand the result if someone is stupidly playing 'show & tell' however didn't the responding police ask when they arrived as to what was going on, then realize his shirt simply rode up and mrs suburbanite braindead threw a stupid fit?

Only in a perfect world.

There are anti-gun cities in Texas that said they will arrest people for "violating" an anti CHL sign they admit does not meet the legal requirements for 30.06 notice.

gringo pistolero wrote: There are anti-gun cities in Texas that said they will arrest people for "violating" an anti CHL sign they admit does not meet the legal requirements for 30.06 notice.

Do you have a link to those statements or a cite from a statement made by one of those city representatives? ie someone with the authority to make such a statement?

Thanks

It might make a difference after the fact, but not before. As I understand it, despite the absolute clarity (in my mind) around the law and what I was taught in CHL class, I have yet to see any case law where someone was arrested for carrying in a place that had an almost-conforming 30.06 sign. It could be one of a few things:
1) No one has actually been arrested.
2) People get arrested, but prosecutors drop charges.
3) People get arrested and are allowed to plead to other charges or otherwise get no-billed under judicial conditions.
4) People note that it's going to cost a *lot* of money to defend and otherwise accept defeat

Personally, if I see a sign that is *close* to conforming on a private business, I'll obey it. I do so out of respect for that property owner's intentions. Cities that post 30.06 signs that are not legal, I've got less respect for, but I consider those places much more rife for legal challenge and associated legal expense if I get caught.

I prefer Brunettes... FWIW.

E.Marquez wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote: There are anti-gun cities in Texas that said they will arrest people for "violating" an anti CHL sign they admit does not meet the legal requirements for 30.06 notice.

Do you have a link to those statements or a cite from a statement made by one of those city representatives? ie someone with the authority to make such a statement?

Thanks

Yeah. How are we supposed to know if you're talking about gun shows in Houston, a mall in Grapevine, or parking lots at several ISDs.