TexasCHLforum.com

The "excuse" used for denying armed CHL access to Mardis Gras was, "The event area was leased by the vendor and is not public. The area has been designated as a bar, and you can't carry your gun in a bar."

Some of the details about my ordeal Friday night are posted in another thread, but I wanted to start a separate thread regarding their legal, or rather illegal, argument. Now I am by no means a lawyer or an expert in the law, but I find three things in the law that I believe are relevant in this situation. They are:

    1) while Chapter 7, Section 229 of the Local Government Code does give local municipalities the authority to prohibit possession of firearms at a parade, it includes specific language excluding an armed CHL. While the "no weapons" signs were probably legal at the event, they do not apply to an armed CHL.

    2) Title 7, Chapter 30.06 of the Penal Code provides "an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035." I can find no exception that removes the definition of "ownership" of public streets by renting them to an event organizer, therefore notice under 30.06 is not valid. I think the city knows this as there were no 30.06 compliant signs posted.

    3) while Section 46.035 makes it a felony to possess a firearm on the premises of a 51 percent establishment, it also says, "'Premises' means a building or a portion of a building.  The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area." The whole argument that "the public streets have been designated a bar, and you can't have a gun in a bar" also falls apart. For what it's worth, there were no "51 Percent" signs that would be required by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code if the streets were in fact a bar anywhere that I could see.

On a side note I'd like to add that no matter how calm and respectful you are, law enforcement officers do not like to have their authority challenged. What I did Friday night was scary even for a person of my stature, and as I sit back and reflect about it, probably not the smartest thing I've ever done. I wouldn't recommend it.

I did read your other thread and wanted to say congrats to you for standing up!

Bottom line is the LEO's did not want to be outnumbered and outgunned.

They (and their bosses) had to think of something, right or wrong.....

AEA wrote:Bottom line is the LEO's did not want to be outnumbered and outgunned.

They (and their bosses) had to think of something, right or wrong.....

I'm guessing it had more to do with insurance companies and city politics.

I went to the Humble Rodeo & BBQ Cook-off yesterday. It's a small event, held over two weekends to raise funds for Humble ISD. On the first weekend, there is a BBQ Cook-off, and on the second weekend, the rodeo itself with a performance (usually an up & comer Country Western artist). Both events are held at the Humble Convention Center & Arena, which belongs to the City of Humble.

The BBQ Cook-off consists of several hospitality tents -perhaps 20 to 30- rented by local business, you pay $10 adult/$5 children admission, but you have to be invited to enter the hospitality tents where food and drinks (alcoholic with a limit) are provided to the invitees for free. There are 2-3 tents open to the general public with food and drinks -both alcoholic and non-alcoholic- available for purchase.

The BBQ Cook-off had a 51% posted on the entrance and exit of the fairgrounds, so I went back to my car and disarmed. However, I am not sure this events truly qualifies for a 51% sign. First, the majority of the revenue to the event organizer (Humble ISD) is hospitality tents rentals and admission fees; second the majority of the alcohol is not been sold, but given for free; lastly, not a whole lot of people drinking as it's a 'family' event, I doubt that 51% of revenue is based on alcoholic beverage sales.

Even tho the event is organized by Humble ISD, this isn't a school event per se, volunteers are mainly people in the community, not students and as I explained before, not held in school property. I would think the rodeo is considered a professional sporting event, so carrying would be prohibited under TPC 46.035(b)(2).

I'll be curious to hear what's the experts' opinion on this.

Chief Porretto returned my call this morning, apologized for the problem, and gave me a description of what the problem entailed. He explained that the officers working within the event and at the gates were under contract by the event organizer and are not on "official" duty. The event organizer is the one who was attempting to force the strict no guns policy with his hired army of private (even though they were in public uniform) security personnel. He also informed me that he personally contacted the event organizer and explained he could not legally bar an armed CHL from the event. He also instructed the event organizer to inform security that they could not prohibit armed CHL entry. He reassured me that anyone going back down there next weekend "shouldn't" have a problem.

The chief provided two pieces of advice if you do decide to go:

1) Do not argue with the officers. They are protected by immunity if they decide to arrest you.

2) Ask them to call a supervisor for clarification, if they refuse, go to the Galveston PD command center at 22nd Street where the official, on-duty, law enforcement officers are and ask them to help you resolve the situation.

Jeff Barriault wrote:Chief Porretto returned my call this morning, apologized for the problem, and gave me a description of what the problem entailed. He explained that the officers working within the event and at the gates were under contract by the event organizer and are not on "official" duty. The event organizer is the one who was attempting to force the strict no guns policy with his hired army of private (even though they were in public uniform) security personnel. He also informed me that he personally contacted the event organizer and explained he could not legally bar an armed CHL from the event. He also instructed the event organizer to inform security that they could not prohibit armed CHL entry. He reassured me that anyone going back down there next weekend "shouldn't" have a problem.

The chief provided two pieces of advice if you do decide to go:

1) Do not argue with the officers. They are protected by immunity if they decide to arrest you.

2) Ask them to call a supervisor for clarification, if they refuse, go to the Galveston PD command center at 22nd Street where the official, on-duty, law enforcement officers are and ask them to help you resolve the situation.

Good job, I do not plan to attend as that is a long way away, but I really appreciate folks such as yourself fighting the good fight (and winning!)

Thanks

Jeff Barriault wrote:Chief Porretto returned my call this morning, apologized for the problem, and gave me a description of what the problem entailed. He explained that the officers working within the event and at the gates were under contract by the event organizer and are not on "official" duty. The event organizer is the one who was attempting to force the strict no guns policy with his hired army of private (even though they were in public uniform) security personnel. He also informed me that he personally contacted the event organizer and explained he could not legally bar an armed CHL from the event. He also instructed the event organizer to inform security that they could not prohibit armed CHL entry. He reassured me that anyone going back down there next weekend "shouldn't" have a problem.

The chief provided two pieces of advice if you do decide to go:

1) Do not argue with the officers. They are protected by immunity if they decide to arrest you.

2) Ask them to call a supervisor for clarification, if they refuse, go to the Galveston PD command center at 22nd Street where the official, on-duty, law enforcement officers are and ask them to help you resolve the situation.

Congratulations to you sir! And thank you for standing up!

Jeff,

Jeff Barriault wrote:Chief Porretto returned my call this morning, apologized for the problem, and gave me a description of what the problem entailed. He explained that the officers working within the event and at the gates were under contract by the event organizer and are not on "official" duty. The event organizer is the one who was attempting to force the strict no guns policy with his hired army of private (even though they were in public uniform) security personnel. He also informed me that he personally contacted the event organizer and explained he could not legally bar an armed CHL from the event. He also instructed the event organizer to inform security that they could not prohibit armed CHL entry. He reassured me that anyone going back down there next weekend "shouldn't" have a problem.

I think the chief blew the whole "immunity defense" out of the water when he admitted an arrest would not be valid. Now he is responsible for the actions of his officers when they are operating in uniform. If the officer makes an arrest and claims ignorance, the chief had a duty to train.

IANAL, but doesn't the "building" have to be posted 51% for it to be a bar as far as CHL holders are concerned? I mean I can have a restaurant called "Dave2's Bar", advertise it as a bar, and run like a bar, but if through some miracle of accounting it's not 51%, then it's not off-limits to people with a CHL carrying a concealed handgun, right? I mean if it's not posted 30.06, obviously.

The point here is that the two officers that gave me the hardest time were from the Galveston County Sheriffs office and DPS. And they were working as off duty security for the event organizer, which I believe was Yaggas. So shame on Yagga's for the crap they pulled, and kudos to Chief Porretto for rectifying the situation once it was brought to his attention. And he took the time to call me back to explain what happened. He seems like a pretty stand up guy.

At the end of the day an officer is going to do what their boss tells them to do. Even if they are pulling a private security gig and their boss is an event organizer. Their job isn't to know every detail of the law, that's the job of the courts. Unless you actually go and read the penal code which defines a 51% establishment and the definition of premises, the argument about "no guns in a bar" sounds logical. I'm not saying it excuses them, especially the DPS officer who should know better, I'm just saying it is what it is.

When everything was all said and done, Chief Porretto corrected the situation. And it was corrected within an hour and a half of my first phone call. If anyone is to blame here it is Yaggas and maybe the Mayor's office. I think the Chief did a fine job.

Jeff Barriault wrote:Their job isn't to know every detail of the law

How are they supposed to enforce the law if they don't know what it is?

Dave2 wrote:

Jeff Barriault wrote:Their job isn't to know every detail of the law

How are they supposed to enforce the law if they don't know what it is?

You would be surprised to know how often they do not know.

mojo84 wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Jeff Barriault wrote:Their job isn't to know every detail of the law

How are they supposed to enforce the law if they don't know what it is?

You would be surprised to know how often they do not know.

Oh I don't doubt it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't set the bar that high anyway. If it's ok for cops to be ignorant of the very laws they're supposed to be enforcing, why can't we plead ignorance in court?