TexasCHLforum.com

...well, don't that turn this thread upside down...my responses were based on the second post...oh, well...

speedsix wrote:...well, don't that turn this thread upside down...my responses were based on the second post...oh, well...

OK.... apparently some explanations are in order....

1. Here is my "second post" which you referenced (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:The Grapevine PD considers the signs to be compliant, and they will arrest you if you are caught inside the mall with your gun. You may beat the time, but you're not going to beat the ride. Our moderator Keith B has had several exchanges with the Chief of the GPD about it, and he has it in writing.
   
   I have lived in Grapevine for 5 years now. I avoided that place like the plague anyway because I despise mall shopping, but I have managed to live happily and conduct all of my affairs without ever feeling the need to go to that mall in the more than 3 years that I've had my CHL. Pretty much every single thing that can be found there can also be found elsewhere in Grapevine, without having to get my panties in a twist over the unfriendly signs at the entrances.
   
   And, from where I live in Grapevine, right on the borders of Euless and Colleyville near Hall Johnson Rd and the 121, The Northeast Mall in Hurst, 17 minutes from my house, takes the same amount of time to get to, and it isn't posted. Guess where I go when I need a mall store.

2. I subsequently posted the following (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:

   MasterOfNone wrote:You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
   Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

   For what it is worth, here is what a CHL's experience is more likely to be like with a GPD officer: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
   
   This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there? It seems to me that, given a regular line officer's reaction to my CHL in the above linked thread, perhaps the patrol officers there are no so likely to rush into any rash actions. I'm wondering if, despite the chief's bluster, if there were some reason for getting caught in an alleged trespass, if simply telling the officer that you entered by an entrance that wasn't posted (not all of them are) and that you didn't see any sign, might give him an excuse to simply turn you lose to leave the mall rather than going through all the hassle of processing an arrest and all its attendant paperwork.
   
   I don't want to be the one to find out, and I abhor that place anyway so I'm never going to go there to begin with, but I suspect that the actual impact to the individual CHL holder might not be entirely commensurate with the chief's bluster.

3. That other topic linked to in that post was one I started after having had earlier that day an encounter with GPD involving the presentation of my CHL to the officer. How many of the people who disagree with me here actually took the time to read that thread? Here is the crux of what I posted there (LINKEY):

   in another thread The Annoyed Man wrote:He asked me a couple of other questions, like how long the event would be going on tonight, how long people would be there, stuff like that. I asked him if he needed to see my ID and he said yes. So I handed him my ID holder with both IDs displayed in it. He didn't say much. He wrote down my name and that's about it. He didn't ask if I was armed. I allowed as how it was pretty hot standing out here in the sun. He then handed my ID back to me, and we went on inside.
   
   [snip]
   
   Anyway, I was gratified that the officer didn't seem to care about my CHL. I'm guessing that he just took a look at me and assumed I was armed and wasn't worried about it. After the wuppin' GPD has taken here on this forum lately over 30.06 at the Grapevine Mills Mall, it was nice to be able to report on a professionally handled call by an officer who isn't upset by the idea of an armed citizen.

4. I posted what I posted in that second post in this thread based on my understanding of information previously shared in other threads by Keith B. A couple of pages later, Keith B interjects with the following (LINKEY):

   Keith B wrote:I want to make some clarification. When I made my inquiry, I was told there is no official policy from the department. I was told that it is felt that the signage is sufficient notification and if you are found carrying there the officer will either tell you to leave or arrest you. It would be up to the officers discretion.
   
   When i requested clarification from the Chief, he responded that I had my answer and he would respond no further to the request for information on the matter. So, depending on the officer, it may be hit or miss on being arrested or told to leave.

   In the very next post below his, I wrote (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:Sounds like, for better or for worse, their policy is the same as the above mentioned DPS representative's.

The crucial difference here is that my original "second post" was based on a mistaken belief that this policy was actively being enforced by the GPD. Keith's response to that further down the thread made me realize that I was wrong, and that it was up to the officer's discretion. To my mind, there is a large and significant difference between a chief's utterances which are rooted in kow-towing to powerful local business interests, and what the line officers will actually do, based on their own understanding of the law and their own intuition, regarding its application.

I, unlike others here who have chosen to "beat up on" the GPD but live in other parts of the state, actually have first hand experience in dealing with GPD line officers, on more than one occasion. In the other thread which I linked to above about my contact with them, they were responding to a burglary alarm, the back of my truck was backed up next to the door in question where the alarm was thought to have originated from, and I was the only person standing there. The officer who accosted me had every reason to suspect that I might be the cause of the alarm. I spoke calmly and did not act hinkey. I offered to show him my ID because he hadn't asked for it after a couple of minutes had gone by, and he didn't seem in a hurry to ask for it, and I needed to get out of the sun. He appeared to be not only completely uninterested in my CHL, but uninterested in whether or not I might be armed. It wasn't because he was being inattentive. He just acted like it was the most normal thing in the world, and no cause for hyperventilation. In fact, I thought he handled the whole thing with a great deal of wisdom and tact. That young man is a very good police officer. He also happens to be just about typical for the other encounters I've had under varying circumstances with GPD officers. When my wife had her "code red" moment a couple of years ago involving some illegal immigrant laborers who were trying to lure her into a bad situation after deliberately backing into her car and then "fleeing," she showed the officer she spoke to her CHL along with her TDL. He didn't comment, and he didn't ask her where the gun was. I was standing right there, so I know this to be a fact. When I finally asked him if he wanted my ID for purposes of the report, he said it wasn't necessary and didn't even ask to see it.

So there are at least TWO personal experiences with GPD involving the presentation of a CHL along with TDL to one of their officers (three, if you count the one not even wanting to see mine for his report), and there was no hubbub, no brouhaha, no drama.

THIS is why I won't engage in beating up on the GPD. My experience with them has been nothing but positive for the past five years that I've lived here. As I mentioned elsewhere not too long ago, I know the chief. Not well. He's not a friend I hang out with. But I do know him through my local chamber of commerce activities. Personally, I am not that impressed with the guy. I don't think he's stupid (he actually has a degree in engineering from UTA and originally started in police work to help pay his way through college). It's that I think he may, based on nothing more than the "vibe" I get from him, be positioned somewhere more to my left than I am comfortable with. If he were a true, rock-ribbed conservative, he would have told whomever influenced him into the wrong direction regarding 30.06 at the mall to go pound sand. Instead, I think he has taken the position that he likes to be chief, and he knows on which side his bread is buttered. That's kind of weasely. Well, not "kind of;" it IS weasely.

However, his beat officers have shown themselves time and again to be very good cops. They have apparently not arrested anybody on a 30.06 trespass violation at GVM for at least the past 5 years. They have dealt directly with me and mine in a professional and courteous manner, and never made an issue out of our CHLs or our guns. I have nothing but good things to say about them.

THAT is why I will not beat up on the entire PD.

Speedsix, I have written a very long answer here and I have tried to be as detailed as possible to explain my rationale. I think I have a superb local PD, with a weaselly bureaucrat at its head. You can get me to talk crap about him all day long, but not about the guys on the beat. I accept that you may not agree with me on any of this, but I hope that you will understand where I am coming from, and why.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

...since this topic first came up (GMM)...the info on the Chief/dept./policy has kept changing...reminds me of a song "First you say you will, and then you won't...First you say you do, and then you don't...you're undecided now, so what're you gonna do..???" MY position is that NO LEO, Chief on down, has a right to ignore/"interpret"/supercede the way the 30.06 law is written, and to threaten/bluster/bluff that his officers will arrest us when we're not violating a law makes my blood boil and smacks of '50s Mississippi "law enforcement"...the whole force gets tarred with the results of a Chief's "policy"...he DOES speak for all of them when he says what they will do...and I've "mavericked" on the street and refused to obey my Chief's wrong policies just like we would hope Grapevine's men would do...but we shouldn't have to rely on that...I won't be bullied by a stuffed shirt politician, even if there's a badge pinned to it...our former chief down here and I crossed swords once when he wouldn't step up...and he backed down and did the right thing...I love our line officers but I was never so glad as to see the wimp go and us get a new Chief...I understand that happens...I also read and commented on your GOOD experience with a GPD trooper...


...bottom line for me...if it is the law...enforce it and I'll obey it...

...if it's not the law...get your nose outa my face and leave me alone...or there'll be consequences...I WILL NOT live in fear of what someone might do because they don't agree with or understand my rights as spelled out in the law...which, by the way, is the expression of the will of WE THE PEOPLE!!!

...the "facts" on this one have changed often...the principle doesn't change...

I can respect that.

Will take my business elsewhere.

KDD wrote:Will take my business elsewhere.

You're not missing much.

C-dub wrote:

KDD wrote:Will take my business elsewhere.

You're not missing much.

True for most, if not all, shopping malls.

C-dub wrote:

KDD wrote:Will take my business elsewhere.

You're not missing much.

I did (do?) have a (mostly) childhood love of Legos, so I'd like to check out the Legoland thingydeal they have there.

Other than that, the only worthwhile thing they have there that I know of is a Panda Express in the food court. I know they are to chinese food as Taco Bell is to mexican, but I like them anyway.

This may have been covered on one of the tons of posts about this mall...none of the store entrances are posted. The only entrances posted are the main "mall" entrances. So let's say I am from out of town. I enter through, say, Burlington Coat Factory, and I do not see that it is posted. I walk all through the mall and never see one of the entrances where the 30.06 signs are posted (legal or non-legal is not relevant in this discussion). Has the law been broken?

Texas Size 11 wrote:This may have been covered on one of the tons of posts about this mall...none of the store entrances are posted. The only entrances posted are the main "mall" entrances. So let's say I am from out of town. I enter through, say, Burlington Coat Factory, and I do not see that it is posted. I walk all through the mall and never see one of the entrances where the 30.06 signs are posted (legal or non-legal is not relevant in this discussion). Has the law been broken?

If you are unaware the mall is posted, and never see the sign, then until you are given notice in some form by being told or see the sign, then you are not breaking the law.

Texas Size 11 wrote:This may have been covered on one of the tons of posts about this mall...none of the store entrances are posted. The only entrances posted are the main "mall" entrances. So let's say I am from out of town. I enter through, say, Burlington Coat Factory, and I do not see that it is posted. I walk all through the mall and never see one of the entrances where the 30.06 signs are posted (legal or non-legal is not relevant in this discussion). Has the law been broken?

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!

We have a winner!

Now, shhhhhhh. And don't go walking around looking at things of no interest to you, like those inconvenient entrances right to the mall. Park by the stores, enter through the stores, and shop. Concealed is concealed, by the way.



In the unlikely event of an "issue" (actual need for self defense, witness a crime where an officer asks for your ID, unintentional failure to conceal), security cameras will confirm that your path into the mall gave you no notice. They should let you go with an oral notice, but if you take a ride, make sure you request video footage ASAP.

Keith B wrote:

Texas Size 11 wrote:This may have been covered on one of the tons of posts about this mall...none of the store entrances are posted. The only entrances posted are the main "mall" entrances. So let's say I am from out of town. I enter through, say, Burlington Coat Factory, and I do not see that it is posted. I walk all through the mall and never see one of the entrances where the 30.06 signs are posted (legal or non-legal is not relevant in this discussion). Has the law been broken?

If you are unaware the mall is posted, and never see the sign, then until you are given notice in some form by being told or see the sign, then you are not breaking the law.

If someone reads this thread then I think they're aware the mall is posted. I think it's not legal notice if they haven't seen it with their own eyes or been told orally, but some people disagree.

Well, I have seen and have been made aware of the non-conforming old 30.06 signs at this mall.

When I was there last winter they do have accurate 3006 signs posted inside the entry door, on the right side wall. You wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it, but it's a compliant sign....

heliguy972 wrote:When I was there last winter they do have accurate 3006 signs posted inside the entry door, on the right side wall. You wouldn't notice it unless you were looking for it, but it's a compliant sign....

Take note of the verbiage. Unless something has changed, it *used* to be compliant.