Tell me where I was in the wrong...

[speedsix]

...no matter if the head of the state police is teaching it wrong...it's still wrong...and the law is still the law...and it's up to we, the people, who, last count, outnumbered the politicians, to demand that they enforce the law and only the law...if we won't fight for our rights...we don't deserve them...when the infamous "test case" comes up...we either show up and wear out the phones and pack the courtroom...or we don't...we CAN make it right if we WILL...

[wgoforth]

...no matter if the head of the state police is teaching it wrong...it's still wrong...and the law is still the law...and it's up to we, the people, who, last count, outnumbered the politicians, to demand that they enforce the law and only the law...if we won't fight for our rights...we don't deserve them...when the infamous "test case" comes up...we either show up and wear out the phones and pack the courtroom...or we don't...we CAN make it right if we WILL...

I agree, as I say my concern is all of the instructorswho were believing this and will now go home and teach it. e have to remember that DPS doesn't write the law, Legislature does. DPS interprets it, and their interpretation may not always be correct. Just like IRS does not write tax codes, Congress does. And IRS is frequently wrong as has been sown in many tax court cases.

[speedsix]

...my whole point is that WHEN they do it wrong, we can't roll over and let it become "accepted"...whether it takes fighting it in court or media or whatever...everyone makes mistakes...but if they're not vigorously corrected, they become "the way it's always been"...and that takes another chip off the Bill of Rights...

[wgoforth]

...my whole point is that WHEN they do it wrong, we can't roll over and let it become "accepted"...whether it takes fighting it in court or media or whatever...everyone makes mistakes...but if they're not vigorously corrected, they become "the way it's always been"...and that takes another chip off the Bill of Rights...

Agreed. They (DPS) said to contact TSRA as they become our collective voice on getting matters changed. That which becomes repeated enough becomes accepted. That which becomes accepted becomes law.

[pcgizzmo]

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.

And I agree with you 100%, I even asked about the old Vernon Statutes that many business cite, asking how can you violate a law that doesn't exist? Their canned response was "You knew the intent." I was please with most of the class, and some great DPS folks taught it...but it is like taxes. CONGRESS (not IRS) writes the tax laws. IRS only enforces it and they are not always right. Similarly, Legislature writes CHL law and DPS enforces and are not always right. There were several smaller issues that were matters of interpretation that came along I don't think most of us would agree with (ie, "printing.") but the signage was the most disturbing to me. Oh, also that you could not turn men away from a Woman's CHL class or one designed just for your congregation as it would be against federal discrimination laws.

I do not know anyone other way to interpret "REQUIRES". "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" When they say "You KNEW the intent"....no, I'm not a mind reader, I didn't. For all I knew they wanted to keep the sheeple and insurance happy while giving us a wink and a nod. The no gun sign/gunbsuter? It could just as easily mean it applies to unlicensed since it says nothing. Like most things...you pays yer monies and you takes your chances.... But the fact remains that no one can find a single CHL holder that has been successfully prosecuted for carrying past an invalid sign.

I don't disagree with you but I wonder how many have been arrested? It still probably cost them money, time or both even if they weren't prosecuted.

Here's what I've been saying and what this post eludes to. There are many LEO's that will arrest a CHL holder for an improperly worded 30.06 sign sighting the fact that the CHL holder knew the intent of the sign poster. Now we hear that DPS is saying even for non 30.06 signs.

My questions are who do I believe? A DPS officer that is supposed to know the law and is teaching the class for instructors to teach others the law or the majority of the collective CHL community who seem to think that only a valid 30.06 will do?

The even bigger question is if the majority of LEO's believe as the DPS officers do then what happens when the DA and Judge believe the same thing?

Who is willing to be a test case?

[wgoforth]

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.

And I agree with you 100%, I even asked about the old Vernon Statutes that many business cite, asking how can you violate a law that doesn't exist? Their canned response was "You knew the intent." I was please with most of the class, and some great DPS folks taught it...but it is like taxes. CONGRESS (not IRS) writes the tax laws. IRS only enforces it and they are not always right. Similarly, Legislature writes CHL law and DPS enforces and are not always right. There were several smaller issues that were matters of interpretation that came along I don't think most of us would agree with (ie, "printing.") but the signage was the most disturbing to me. Oh, also that you could not turn men away from a Woman's CHL class or one designed just for your congregation as it would be against federal discrimination laws.

I do not know anyone other way to interpret "REQUIRES". "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" When they say "You KNEW the intent"....no, I'm not a mind reader, I didn't. For all I knew they wanted to keep the sheeple and insurance happy while giving us a wink and a nod. The no gun sign/gunbsuter? It could just as easily mean it applies to unlicensed since it says nothing. Like most things...you pays yer monies and you takes your chances.... But the fact remains that no one can find a single CHL holder that has been successfully prosecuted for carrying past an invalid sign.

I don't disagree with you but I wonder how many have been arrested? It still probably cost them money, time or both even if they weren't prosecuted.

Here's what I've been saying and what this post eludes to. There are many LEO's that will arrest a CHL holder for an improperly worded 30.06 sign sighting the fact that the CHL holder knew the intent of the sign poster. Now we hear that DPS is saying even for non 30.06 signs.

My questions are who do I believe? A DPS officer that is supposed to know the law and is teaching the class for instructors to teach others the law or the majority of the collective CHL community who seem to think that only a valid 30.06 will do?

The even bigger question is if the majority of LEO's believe as the DPS officers do then what happens when the DA and Judge believe the same thing?

Who is willing to be a test case?

The problem is you are only giving two choices...the DPS or the CHL holders... the third alternative is the correct one, which is the LAW of the Penal Code, written by neither but by the State Legislature. THAT is what the Judge/DA will go by. DPS writes no law. They also said your not allowed to even take a single drink of alcohol, not even wine with your meal or you will be arrested if your pulled over for speeding. While I am a tea-totaler, are you willing to do that because DPS says so though the TPC doesn't? They also said to ask permission to carry in church? Do that because they said so but the TPC does not? Not have women's CHL classes because DPS says so? What other rights are you willing to have restricted further?

[speedsix]

...BELIEVE that the written law means EXACTLY what it said...my original CHL class was taught by one of the men who wrote the 30.06 law...you can't imagine how carefully it was written to allow us to carry legally in as many places as possible in Texas...I'm not willing to give an INCH back to those who want to restrict our right to go armed...that'd be an insult to the efforts of all of those who worked so long and hard to get the law passed...

...if an officer or a judge or a jury disagrees with the law...our options are to appeal...and contest it in the media and with protests and anything else we can legally do to contest ANY law that's ignored by those supposed to enforce it...that's the way the system works...

...test case???? IF someone is discovered carrying legally concealed(how do you do that?) and arrested and charged...we'll have a test case...so far, I know of only one in Texas arrested for carrying concealed past an unenforceable sign...and the charges were dropped by a DA who read the law...and believed that it meant what it said...

[wgoforth]

...BELIEVE that the written law means EXACTLY what it said...my original CHL class was taught by one of the men who wrote the 30.06 law...you can't imagine how carefully it was written to allow us to carry legally in as many places as possible in Texas...I'm not willing to give an INCH back to those who want to restrict our right to go armed...that'd be an insult to the efforts of all of those who worked so long and hard to get the law passed...

...if an officer or a judge or a jury disagrees with the law...our options are to appeal...and contest it in the media and with protests and anything else we can legally do to contest ANY law that's ignored by those supposed to enforce it...that's the way the system works...

...test case???? IF someone is discovered carrying legally concealed(how do you do that?) and arrested and charged...we'll have a test case...so far, I know of only one in Texas arrested for carrying concealed past an unenforceable sign...and the charges were dropped by a DA who read the law...and believed that it meant what it said...

AMEN!

[03Lightningrocks]

wgoforth.... maybe you should start a thread on this issue since it is somewhat a topic of it's own. Title it... new teaching requirements for CHL instructors. Seriously!!! If the DPS is actually teaching CHL instructors to tell students to stay out of places with gun buster signs if they are carrying concealed, we have a HUGE problem. Instead of rolling over, you should be writing letters and raising several kinds of hadies on this. You took the class that this was happening in... YOU ARE WHO NEEDS TO REPORT IT!!! You are failing to do your civic duty to not report it. Myself or others can complain but it means nothing as we are talking third parties. What are we suppose to do... say we read it on the internet??? After they get done laughing, they will hang up the phone!

If this really happened, file a complaint. PLEASE!!! At the very least... start a thread about this or maybe email Mr. Cotton... Somebody with pull needs to do something. This is complete and total crappola!!!

[speedsix]

wgoforth.... maybe you should start a thread on this issue since it is somewhat a topic of it's own. Title it... new teaching requirements for CHL instructers. Seriously!!! If the DPS is actually teaching CHL instructers to tell students to stay out of places with gun buster signs if they are carrying concealed, we have a HUGE problem. Instead of rolling over, you should be writing letters and raising several kinds of hadies on this. You took the class that this was happening in... YOU ARE WHO NEEDS TO REPORT IT!!! You are failing to do your civic duty to not report it. Myself or others can complain but it means nothing as we are talking third parties. What are we suppose to do... say we read it on the internet??? After they get done laughing, they will hang up the phone!

If this really happened, file a complaint. PLEASE!!! At the very least... start a thread about this or maybe email Mr. Cotton... Somebody with pull needs to do something. This is complete and total crappola!!!

...he's already posted what he was gonna do...why're you fannin' like a widow's apron on a hot summer day???

[03Lightningrocks]

wgoforth.... maybe you should start a thread on this issue since it is somewhat a topic of it's own. Title it... new teaching requirements for CHL instructers. Seriously!!! If the DPS is actually teaching CHL instructers to tell students to stay out of places with gun buster signs if they are carrying concealed, we have a HUGE problem. Instead of rolling over, you should be writing letters and raising several kinds of hadies on this. You took the class that this was happening in... YOU ARE WHO NEEDS TO REPORT IT!!! You are failing to do your civic duty to not report it. Myself or others can complain but it means nothing as we are talking third parties. What are we suppose to do... say we read it on the internet??? After they get done laughing, they will hang up the phone!

If this really happened, file a complaint. PLEASE!!! At the very least... start a thread about this or maybe email Mr. Cotton... Somebody with pull needs to do something. This is complete and total crappola!!!

...he's already posted what he was gonna do...why're you fannin' like a widow's apron on a hot summer day???

Oh... what is he gonna do?

[speedsix]

...I can't read his post to you...I'm not that computer literate... (I'm bored...I'm dangerous...don't mess wit' me!!!)

[03Lightningrocks]

...I can't read his post to you...I'm not that computer literate... (I'm bored...I'm dangerous...don't mess wit' me!!!)

I think I found it... I had to weed through all your fannin' to find it...LOL. Contacting the TSRA is not enough. He needs to open a vein or something to get attention on this issue.

[wgoforth]

...I can't read his post to you...I'm not that computer literate... (I'm bored...I'm dangerous...don't mess wit' me!!!)

I think I found it... I had to weed through all your fannin' to find it...LOL. Contacting the TSRA is not enough. He needs to open a vein or something to get attention on this issue.

It was stated that if we wanted changes, the TSRA is our advocate/lobby, that we need to contact them. It will not do good to contact DPS as this is what they have decided the law is. Feel free to contact the CHL offices if you have doubts to their interpretations of these matters. In fact, I know at least one of them is a forum member. Don't get me wrong, these were very likeable men, and one of them may not have agreed with the official interpretation, but had to teach it per DPS policy. However, these matters were incorrect.

[speedsix]

...I can't read his post to you...I'm not that computer literate... (I'm bored...I'm dangerous...don't mess wit' me!!!)

I think I found it... I had to weed through all your fannin' to find it...LOL. Contacting the TSRA is not enough. He needs to open a vein or something to get attention on this issue.

...now don't go promotin' violence just yet...I'm sure we can work somethin' out...