TexasCHLforum.com

Ericstac wrote:I would carry. Even if there was concern over that sign the only way I'm getting caught is if I pull my CONCEALED gun... And if I have to pull it then the situation was life threatening and any sign won't matter at that point.

What if God forbid you had a heart attack or any other medical emergency while in the building? What if you slipped and fell and injured yourself in such a way medical personell were called? What if the paramedics discovered your firearm and someone in the office building pointed out you were in violation of the sign?

There are ways that you can be outed without intention on your part.

Edited to correct IPhones choice of word.

Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

The problem with being a test case is you can have charges stacked on, like intentionally failing to conceal, in order to "get" arrested for violating a non-compliant sign. Thus, you may have the charge dropped for the non-compliant sign violation, but you still have to face the Class A misdemeanor for violating PC 46.035(a).

Sort of like the Ft. Hood Staff Sgt. who trial for carrying in a non-posted hospital starts tomorrow. He was arrested on a bogus charge, but then they piled on the intoxication charge after the fact.

Also, I don't have the funds or lawyer buddies to do that. I would not carry past a 30.03 sign on purpose.

Jaguar wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

The problem with being a test case is you can have charges stacked on, like intentionally failing to conceal, in order to "get" arrested for violating a non-compliant sign. Thus, you may have the charge dropped for the non-compliant sign violation, but you still have to face the Class A misdemeanor for violating PC 46.035(a).

Sort of like the Ft. Hood Staff Sgt. who trial for carrying in a non-posted hospital starts tomorrow. He was arrested on a bogus charge, but then they piled on the intoxication charge after the fact.

Also, I don't have the funds or lawyer buddies to do that. I would not carry past a 30.03 sign on purpose.

Exactly!

Jaguar wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

The problem with being a test case is you can have charges stacked on, like intentionally failing to conceal, in order to "get" arrested for violating a non-compliant sign. Thus, you may have the charge dropped for the non-compliant sign violation, but you still have to face the Class A misdemeanor for violating PC 46.035(a).

Sort of like the Ft. Hood Staff Sgt. who trial for carrying in a non-posted hospital starts tomorrow. He was arrested on a bogus charge, but then they piled on the intoxication charge after the fact.

Also, I don't have the funds or lawyer buddies to do that. I would not carry past a 30.03 sign on purpose.

Since the sign was non-compliant, how have you violated any part pf 46.035? 46/035 doesn't even apply "(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

MasterOfNone wrote:Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?

I hope you didn't carry in church today. They can ignore the exact letter of 46.035 (subsection i) just as easily as they ignore the exact letter of the 30.06 law. Nobody has been a test case for either one.

Republicans 4 Obama wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:Now imagine Eric Holder as DA and Sotomayor as Judge with an Austin jury. What are the odds of the exact letter of the law being upheld?

I hope you didn't carry in church today. They can ignore the exact letter of 46.035 (subsection i) just as easily as they ignore the exact letter of the 30.06 law. Nobody has been a test case for either one.

Though the law may be written in a manner that logical people see as clear and beyond interpretation, it is still applied by human beings, who are notorious for injecting feelings into matters of logic and fact. How many times have you heard jurors interviewed after big trials saying their decisions were based on their personal impressions of the defendant - he didn't seem sincere, he didn't act like someone who just lost his wife, he didn't show any remorse - none of which are required by law.
Application of the law is one big risk management exercise. For any act, you weigh the risks associated with the act and decide whether it is worth pursuing. In cases like this, the risk of misapplication of the law are greater when the the point being challenged is small.
Would you also ignore a 30.06 sign with 15/16 inch letters or that is missing a comma or parenthesis?

You all need to consider what a "reasonable person" would do. Now, I have never met this person, but I know they're out there because the law is full of references to him. If Mr or Ms Reasonable sees a sign that has everything correct except the "30.06" is "30.03." Would they ignore it or obey it? In cases like this you have to make your own decision according to your own standard of reasonable.

If the sign says 30.03 then I for sure wouldn't carry inside that vending machine.

bronco78 wrote:To each his own.....but I'll never understand that sort of person, or how they came to the position of submission.

I was just keeping my mouth shut because I see no need to announce my intentions. Your post, however, prompted a response: I would carry past that sign without a moments hesitation.

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

Many say they would carry past the sign but none say they would announce their legal challenge to the sign's poster. We need a test case and we it need now...or next week, maybe.

"...it ain't me, Babe; no, no, no, it ain't me...."

No

I wouldn't care to stand the potential cost of my legal expense if the worst case scenario should descend...

Does my caution advance the cause of the those who infringe upon us unfairly - maybe...but I'm not going to risk it.

For me the prudent choice is: Use the services available that don't infringe and tolerate whatever sacrifice and inconvenience that amounts too..

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

Many say they would carry past the sign but none say they would announce their legal challenge to the sign's poster. We need a test case and we it need now...or next week, maybe.

"...it ain't me, Babe; no, no, no, it ain't me...."

That has a particular ring to it.

The cost of being a test case requires first, that you are convicted of the crime, and that, second you appeal and win the appeal.

IMO, the chances of getting discovered while going in for a medical exam is a thousand times higher than going into a restaurant to eat or into a grocery store to shop. I would disarm or go to another clinic.

jimlongley wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Inasmuch as there doesn't seem to be any court case interpretation of this question, opportunity abounds for someone to come forward and be the test case. Who's first?

The problem with being a test case is you can have charges stacked on, like intentionally failing to conceal, in order to "get" arrested for violating a non-compliant sign. Thus, you may have the charge dropped for the non-compliant sign violation, but you still have to face the Class A misdemeanor for violating PC 46.035(a).

Sort of like the Ft. Hood Staff Sgt. who trial for carrying in a non-posted hospital starts tomorrow. He was arrested on a bogus charge, but then they piled on the intoxication charge after the fact.

Also, I don't have the funds or lawyer buddies to do that. I would not carry past a 30.03 sign on purpose.

Since the sign was non-compliant, how have you violated any part pf 46.035? 46/035 doesn't even apply "(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

I did say 46.035(a).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

I was trying to say volunteering would require you knowingly fail to conceal, which would be prosecuted under the following,

(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is a Class A misdemeanor

And, (i) does not exempt section (a).