TexasCHLforum.com

Come to think about it...

Could this, if she is properly represented, be the (or "A") "test case" we have been hoping for???

stevie_d_64 wrote:Come to think about it...

Could this, if she is properly represented, be the (or "A") "test case" we have been hoping for???

Could be yes, but it wouldn't be my choice because of the facts. Assuming the written notice she received didn't contain the statutorily-required language, and assuming she didn't have verbal notice, then the elements of the crime are not present and she should win. However, lawyers have a saying that "bad facts make bad law." It means that some courts and judges (at both the trial and the appellate levels) are looking to achieve a desired result because of the bad facts, rather than scrupulously trying to apply the law.

If this is a mental hospital where even LEO's disarm, this is not the fact pattern I would want to take to an appellate court, or the court of public opinion, for that matter. That said, if she wasn't given proper notice, she should not be prosecuted and she should win if she is.

Chas.

Any word an a legal defense fund?

Anygun

anygunanywhere wrote:Any word an a legal defense fund?

Anygun

There is a previous post that indicates that TSRA is going to contact her and her CHL instructor tomorrow.

Russell wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Any word an a legal defense fund?

Anygun

Hold off on the legal defense fund until you find out if she actually broke the law or not.

Call me whatever you would like to call me, but ignoring Section 30.06 is not going to do anything for advancing our rights to carry.

Your right, Russell. She is probably guilty so why help her? Fighting unjust laws is of no use. Bad CHLer! Bad CHLer! SHUN SHUN.

Lots of folks still think Mr. Horn ought to go to jail, but lots of folks on this site contributed to his defense.

Anygun

Russell wrote:

dihappy wrote:

Im betting that the Police did NOT know the law and arrested her on a violation of a supposed "posted sign"

Nope, that is incorrect. Read http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=12768 that thread. It is an email by the chief of police explaining the incident. They did not arrest her on the "no guns" sign, they arrested her on the basis that she was given prior written notification by her employer.

I read what the chief wrote, however my question is in regards to what the Police spokesperson stated.

Im lead to beleive that due to the Chiefs investigation he found out after the fact that she was given notice. They seemed so sure of themselves quoting some suppossed Health Policy that NO NONE is allowed to be armed in ANY hospital.

I didnt see any mention of her being arrested due to written or oral notice by the employer.

If however they arrested her on being notified by the employer in another way, then fine, she broke the law.

I sent an email to Chief Flory expressing concern over the mis-statement of the law by Lt Roberts. I will post his response should he send one.

Edited to add the text of my email: (no response yet)

Chief Flory, I have read your account of the arrest of the CHL Holder at Harris Hospital and appreciate your quick and forthright response. I know that a lot of the concern by CHL holders was over the statement of Lt Roberts that “there are no exceptions� to carrying in a hospital, when in fact there is an exception. This statement is seen by many to indicate a lack of understanding of CHL laws by Bedford PD. Those CHL holders that I know strive to keep abreast of the law and any changes that would affect them. We want to observe the law and are concerned that a mis-understanding such as this statement might lead to our arrest when we are in the right.

Thank you.

(Commander)

I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

Hospital policy. The same as when we go to city or county jail - it's their policy that dictates the weapons on premises procedures.

CHL/LEO wrote:

I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

Hospital policy. The same as when we go to city or county jail - it's their policy that dictates the weapons on premises procedures.

As which person are you talking about???

Because maybe like some have said before, as a LEO, by law you do not have to disarm but just go along with their policy.

But as a CHL, then it is the LAW not policy that you have to abide by.

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.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

Lucky 45: as an LEO - here is the previous post that I was responding to:

CHL/LEO wrote:

our own Bedford Police Officers are not allowed to carry weapons; they must secure them at the door even if we are responding to a disturbance.

This sounds pretty absurd to me. I've booked many a person into Parkland's Psych ward over the years and yes, we do have to secure our weapons in lock boxes prior to entering with our prisoner. But, if there was a disturbance at that location and we responded, I can assure you that I would not be securing my weapon in those boxes. They have plenty of orderlies at that location to deal with out of control patients. If they are overwhelmed or incapacitated then I'm not going in there without any tools to deal with the situation.

I am just curious, are you guys securing your weapons just because it is hospital policy (and to be nice), or are you securing them under a statute or departmental policy?

Russell wrote: Section 30.06 is not an unjust law. I very much believe in the right of a private property owner having total and full control over his own property, including rather or not somebody is allowed to carry a handgun onto the property. .

Fine. Believe all you want. I am certain many others believe like you do. I do not.

If so many folks believe in personal property rights, why are so many on this board always crying about 30.06 postings and "They do not want my business"? If personal property is so sacred, then we really shouldn't even be diascussing 30.06 ever on this board because it would not matter.

If an individual trusts LEO to carry on their property, they should allow us to carry on their property. There is no difference.

Anygun

While I agree with a person's right to control their own property, I think you give up a large part of that when you open that property to the public at large. You cannot control who enters it, including criminals and deranged people. If I am invited onto private property (invited by advertising, or an "open" sign etc) then I insist that the property owner either allow me the means to defend myself, or provide effective security for his guests. Since the latter is rare or inadequate, we insist on being able to provide personally for the defense of ourselves and our loved ones.
Note that the same premises that is posted 30.06 is usually also posted with disclaimers to the effect that the management is not responsible for injury to guests. I noted that at the FW Stock Show Saturday.

As for the original topic, it remains to be seen whether the accused received (and signed) written notice in the correct 30.06 language, or was specifically verbally instructed (and witnessed) against carrying at work. I presume Jim Dark is asking those questions about now.