TexasCHLforum.com

I guess this all begs the question...what are they going to do about it if I cut the strap and reload after I enter? I WILL. Next time I go to a posted gun show on public property....maybe.

ScottDLS wrote:I guess this all begs the question...what are they going to do about it if I cut the strap and reload after I enter? I WILL. Next time I go to a posted gun show on public property....maybe.

All they legally can do is ask you to leave.

dhoobler wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

Yes

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

Question of the day: can a private business on public property deny service anyone they want, if its not gender, racial, etc.?

Yes

Papa_Tiger wrote:IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

That doesn't bother me at all. I'd walk right past "private security" - worst case, if they catch me, they can ask me to leave and I will.

However, LEOs that are working the door and enforcing signs that run contrary to the laws on the books give me pause, especially if they're indemnified if they can reasonably claim that they don't know the law. I don't really have the time or inclination to be the test case for that. I'd rather file a civil complaint with appropriate channels. Behavior of the tenant doens't necessarily let the owner off the hook for a civil fine, especially in regard to repeat behavior.

EEllis wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

Question of the day: can a private business on public property deny service anyone they want, if its not gender, racial, etc.?

Yes

Yes but if they catch you after they asked you to leave DUE TO CHL, and you didn't, you cannot be prosecuted for trespass.

ScottDLS wrote:

EEllis wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:IMO, all this means is that they will be hiring "private security" who have no reason not to enforce the house rule.

Private security has no authority to enforce a law. The only thing they could do is play bouncer and physically remove you. That begs a question. Does a private individual have the right/authority to physically remove you from public property?

Question of the day: can a private business on public property deny service anyone they want, if its not gender, racial, etc.?

Yes

Yes but if they catch you after they asked you to leave DUE TO CHL, and you didn't, you cannot be prosecuted for trespass.

They will argue that it's not about chl but rather you not following house rules. You can't know which judge you will get. CJ was also convinced he was right. I'm not saying you're wrong just trying to be objective.

EEllis wrote: They will argue that it's not about chl but rather you not following house rules. You can't know which judge you will get. CJ was also convinced he was right. I'm not saying you're wrong just trying to be objective.

Yes, but they are going to have to state what "house rules" you were violating, and if they were related to CHL then trespass doesn't apply. Of course, as the board cliche goes...with an anti-gun judge and DA....you may get convicted. Then again, the Governor can be indicted for vetoing a bill...and same sex marriage is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th amendment.... . Who knew?

ScottDLS wrote:

EEllis wrote: They will argue that it's not about chl but rather you not following house rules. You can't know which judge you will get. CJ was also convinced he was right. I'm not saying you're wrong just trying to be objective.

Yes, but they are going to have to state what "house rules" you were violating, and if they were related to CHL then trespass doesn't apply. Of course, as the board cliche goes...with an anti-gun judge and DA....you may get convicted. Then again, the Governor can be indicted for vetoing a bill...and same sex marriage is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th amendment.... . Who knew?

Basically my point. Academically you can argue anything but in real life...... That and if you do get charged the arrest would be the punishment anyway. All beating in court would do is let you keep your chl.

Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

sugar land dave wrote:Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

Since they are not posting 30.06 but signs saying guns must be unloaded before entry how is anyone making it criminal? Also intent means squat. Just ask people on here about the legality of a incorrect 30.06 sign. All the sudden it's the letter of the law then. But you are right in that if police working these show are not careful they could open themselves and the promoters to major civil liability.

EEllis wrote:Since they are not posting 30.06 but signs saying guns must be unloaded before entry how is anyone making it criminal? Also intent means squat. Just ask people on here about the legality of a incorrect 30.06 sign. All the sudden it's the letter of the law then. But you are right in that if police working these show are not careful they could open themselves and the promoters to major civil liability.

I'm glad that we can agree that a criminal charge is likely off the table, but intent is something that good legal professionals would look at in my opinion when deciding anything of a criminal or civil nature. I think law enforcement and private security alike must always try to use good judgement about these matters as should we. I just do not want to see unjustified fear taking away our lawful firearm and thus our ability to possibly defend ourself, friends, family, good citizens, and law enforcement officers in need of assistance

jimlongley wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I believe I read it here but: the city requires insurance in order to rent the venue & the gun show organizer cant get insurance unless he abides by the insurance company's provisions. The insurance company stipulates the firearm policies.

Too bad. If your insurance company required you to have blinking red and blue lights on top of your vehicle, would they pay the fines? The insurance company is going to have to live with the law.

Mentioned above, the gun show organizer says that by buying a ticket you enter into a contract and so on, in which case a 30.06 sign becomes unnecessary and in light of the law, illegal to post. They are going to have to put up another sign.

Something to chew on:

If the insurer can mandate this policy for gun shows, whats to stop them from banning guns at boat shows, gardening shows, art shows, etc?

Jim Beaux wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I believe I read it here but: the city requires insurance in order to rent the venue & the gun show organizer cant get insurance unless he abides by the insurance company's provisions. The insurance company stipulates the firearm policies.

Too bad. If your insurance company required you to have blinking red and blue lights on top of your vehicle, would they pay the fines? The insurance company is going to have to live with the law.

Mentioned above, the gun show organizer says that by buying a ticket you enter into a contract and so on, in which case a 30.06 sign becomes unnecessary and in light of the law, illegal to post. They are going to have to put up another sign.

Something to chew on:

If the insurer can mandate this policy for gun shows, whats to stop them from banning guns at boat shows, gardening shows, art shows, etc?

Well a big thing is there are additional safety concerns because in the course of regular business people going to gun shows handle guns openly. Any other show doing so would get you arrested. That factor could make a difference in how a court rules.