TexasCHLforum.com

Worrying that the cop doesnt know the law is a pretty slippery slope. And if a cop wanted to hassle you seems like he would just get you
on failure to conceal. Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

Wisewr wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:As has been pointed out numerous times here, there is nothing illegal about posting these signs.

They are, however, unenforceable.

I agree that these signs are unenforceable, but what I would be worried about is one of the officers on duty at the library being alert, for a change, and notice me carrying and not knowing the signs are unenforceable. To stay out of trouble you would have to argue that the sign is unenforceable, not that you didn't see it because there is no way your going to miss that sign. Trying to make that argument on the spot would probably still get you at least a court date which I wouldn't want to go through.

And I know, we always say, concealed is concealed, but if you were looking for a concealed gun on somone and knew what you were looking for, you can probably spot it.

wford wrote:Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

Nope.

wford wrote:Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

No I don't because these signs do not apply to the CHL holder. The 30.06 sign does when it is posted correctly and on the right building.

Dealing with the police is probably indeed a slippery slope with some LEO's. Some know their stuff and these are the guys that you don't need to worry about. It's the ones who only know half the law that will get you in trouble. In this case the half of the law some know is that where there is a 30.06 sign it is illegal for the CHL holder to carry. The part they don't know is the part we're discussing here in this thread.

Wisewr wrote:

wford wrote:Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

No I don't because these signs do not apply to the CHL holder. The 30.06 sign does when it is posted correctly and on the right building.

Dealing with the police is probably indeed a slippery slope with some LEO's. Some know their stuff and these are the guys that you don't need to worry about. It's the ones who only know half the law that will get you in trouble. In this case the half of the law some know is that where there is a 30.06 sign it is illegal for the CHL holder to carry. The part they don't know is the part we're discussing here in this thread.

Judging by the number of people that post on these forums, that have gone through the class, that still aren't sure about 30.06 signs on govt property, as well as things like church carry, I'm pretty sure that most officers would probably consider a 30.06 on a library valid. Their training probably was along the lines of "30.06 = no carry" without all the extra stipulations.

Wisewr,

My gun was exposed at the library - however, I didn't the "the ride". However, I can see how my wording gave you that impression and for that I apologize.

It happened in the library parking lot as I was exiting my vehicle. My holster quite literally fell apart and my pistol fell to the ground.

The screws in my bolatron holster (high grade plastic) had backed out and bingo, out she came... I've since applied glue to the screw threads and such has never happened again.

On one other occasion my pistol was exposed due to high wind in an HEB parking lot.

Many here feel secure with the statement that "concealed is concealed" presumably without regard for the fact that concealed isn't ALWAYS concealed as the unexpected can and does occur...

dicion wrote: I'm pretty sure that most officers would probably consider a 30.06 on a library valid. Their training probably was along the lines of "30.06 = no carry" without all the extra stipulations.

My point excatly. You just said it better.

Abraham wrote:Many here feel secure with the statement that "concealed is concealed" presumably without regard for the fact that concealed isn't ALWAYS concealed as the unexpected can and does occur...

That's also a good point. You can't always plan for the unexpected. And some LEO with a "thing" wouldn't understand that.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me, but I am going to try and work on a response letter to send to the city sometime next week.

I am curious as to what your involvement is with Texas LEO training which would allow you to describe the knowledge of "most officers" and the level of training they receive on the penal code.

I'm going to guess that based on your concerns expressed in this thread that your not going to carry in a Library with a 30.06.
I do(did, not postive the sign is still there) and would encourage others too also.

Wisewr wrote:

dicion wrote: I'm pretty sure that most officers would probably consider a 30.06 on a library valid. Their training probably was along the lines of "30.06 = no carry" without all the extra stipulations.

My point excatly. You just said it better.

Abraham wrote:Many here feel secure with the statement that "concealed is concealed" presumably without regard for the fact that concealed isn't ALWAYS concealed as the unexpected can and does occur...

That's also a good point. You can't always plan for the unexpected. And some LEO with a "thing" wouldn't understand that.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me, but I am going to try and work on a response letter to send to the city sometime next week.

wford wrote:I am curious as to what your involvement is with Texas LEO training which would allow you to describe the knowledge of "most officers" and the level of training they receive on the penal code.

Your right, maybe it is a rash thing to say without knowing what type of training they get. I would say that with my one personal encounter I had with a senior officer (30 yr. veteran) and what I see on this board and others about LEO's telling people things that are not enforcable and such that "most officers" knowledge is lacking in this area. I don't know what extent of training they recieve, but I would like to make a personal comparison if I may. I am an operator at a chemical plant. There were a million different rules that I had to learn when I hired in, I'm still working on that 5 years later. The management team comes out with so many new rules and procedures or changes to existing ones that it is near impossible to remeber them all. I take that back, it is impossible for one person to correctly remeber them all always, all the time. So when it comes to LEO's and what they know concerning CHL laws, I sympothize and understand because I can imagine that their job, in that respect, is much the same as mine. The laws are constantly changing and there is a lot of other stuff they have to keep up with. So it's not a cut to them, just trying to be realistic about the situation.

Just a side note, this is one of the things me and the LEO at the library talked about. He admitted to knowing that, at the time, all he knew about CHL was that I had to display the card and what the card looked like. Other than that he said he didn't know anything else about CHL and its "technical" laws.

wford wrote:I'm going to guess that based on your concerns expressed in this thread that your not going to carry in a Library with a 30.06.
I do(did, not postive the sign is still there) and would encourage others too also.

Well, just being honest, I have gone there one other time and did not carry because I was still on the fence about the whole situation. But, I think next time I would like to, but also worry about the same LEO spotting me and maybe wanting to do a search. I know, highly unlikey, but just a worry.

Russell wrote:Also, we need to be careful in what wording we use here. An improperly posted 30.06 sign is NOT ILLEGAL. It may be unenforceable, but there is no law written anywhere that states a local, county, or state government may not post 30.06 signs on government property.

That is one thing I have learned from this thread. Not illegal, just unenforceable.

Thanks for the responses.

wford wrote:I am curious as to what your involvement is with Texas LEO training which would allow you to describe the knowledge of "most officers" and the level of training they receive on the penal code.

Knowledge of their Training? None. However, even if it was covered in their training, it is one of those small things that they probably never will have to deal with, so it gets 'lost'. I know I've lost TONS of things from previous training I've had.

Personal Experience? Lots. I work with officers from various agencies very frequently.
I have discussed some of these topics with various officers during my work, which can sometimes take quite some time, so we have some time to chat. Generally, it starts with a "Hey, is that a <Insert Gun that is on their hip at the time>? How do you like it?" approach, carrying on from there. I've found, that, as stated above, the officers I have talked to know the basics. That it's allowed, the card, and most of them that I spoke to knew of the "Large Ugly Sign" Requirement (as one officer put it) to prevent them from carrying it. Beyond that, though, they did not seem to know the various 'minor' technicalities.

I don't fault them for it though. As a proof of concept, I submit this:

I'm assuming that lots of people here have taken CPR Training at one point or another in their lives.
How many Compressions per how many breaths are you supposed to give over how long of a time frame?
With one person?
With 2 people?

No Cheating! Chances are, even if you have received the training, unless you deal with it Frequently enough, or go through frequent refresher training, you won't remember that information off the top of your head.
Oh, By the way, it's changed a few times over the past decades ;) (Just like CHL Law!) So if you quote the old numbers, or refer to an old poster you may have, you are still wrong

My point is, that specific things that we don't use often, or at all, even if we get occasional training, are easily forgotten. That's why LEO's may not know all the subtleties of CHL law. They have bigger things to worry about on a daily basis.

Tell me why the Houston Public Library, for instance, has a 30.06 sign posted if they don't think they can enforce it. You think they have it up because it looks pretty? Ill bet that if you get outed there they will try to enforce it.

I don't get what is so hard to understand. "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property ...is owned or leased by a governmental entity...." is a legaleese way of saying that a "governmental entity" can not give effective notice. In other words, if you are carrying your handgun in compliance with the law, the "governmental entity" is not allowed by law to keep you out. If they try to prevent your entry (which is why they post the 30.06 sign) they are therefore breaking the law because, once again, they are not allowed to keep you out.

This is quite different from the local hippie mart with their "no weapons allowed," "gunbusters" or near 30.06 sign typed on an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper. They are allowed to keep CHLs from carrying there and the law spells out the ways that they can have their wishes enforced by law. I

I don't know how else you could explain it.

dicion wrote: My point is, that specific things that we don't use often, or at all, even if we get occasional training, are easily forgotten.

How true is this.

As the famous philosopher Guido Sarducci once mused...

"I am a going to starta, the Five Minute a University a because I can teacha everything a in five a minutes a you remember a
after four years a of college a"

Well I dont really have anything further to add. I think everyone undersands the facts pretty much except Mr. Dickens(sorry I dont know how to help you).
Personally I would have to have a pretty good understanding why the cities were not required to remove the signs by the legislature before I would try to have them
removed today.