TexasCHLforum.com

I did not want to hijack another thread so I decided to bring a new discussion here. The link below (I hope it works) is from our own Keith. It states that the police at GMM have expressly informed him that if they catch someone carrying in the mall, they will be arrested for criminal trespass due to the 30.06 signs evemn though the verbage is incorrect.


posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=821877" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, my question for the legal eagles here is since they have a satellite police station inside the mall, doesn't this effectively negate the 30.06 sign altogether? Just saying.

Want to detail the property ownership/lease arrangement between the mall and the PD? I think the details might be required.

Two things are at play here:
1) What is "legal".
2) What will happen if you carry here.

IMHO:
1) The mall isn't covered (prohibiting CHL) - the verbiage is incorrect and there are unmarked entrances. To the best of my knowledge there is no caselaw challenging an arrest over incorrect verbiage on a 30.06 sign. The intent of the law is clear, but you never know what a judge or jury will do.

2) What will happen is also pretty clear:

...have word direct from the Chief of GPD that an officer MAY arrest you for carrying in the mall if you are discovered, legal or not.

On #2, I'd love to see written confirmation that the Chief has ordered CHLs to be arrested in spite of being legal... If he did that, I'd show up at the door as I know I'll be making some money on the resulting civil case.

cb1000rider wrote:Want to detail the property ownership/lease arrangement between the mall and the PD? I think the details might be required.

Two things are at play here:
1) What is "legal".
2) What will happen if you carry here.

IMHO:
1) The mall isn't covered (prohibiting CHL) - the verbiage is incorrect and there are unmarked entrances. To the best of my knowledge there is no caselaw challenging an arrest over incorrect verbiage on a 30.06 sign. The intent of the law is clear, but you never know what a judge or jury will do.

2) What will happen is also pretty clear:

...have word direct from the Chief of GPD that an officer MAY arrest you for carrying in the mall if you are discovered, legal or not.

On #2, I'd love to see written confirmation that the Chief has ordered CHLs to be arrested in spite of being legal... If he did that, I'd show up at the door as I know I'll be making some money on the resulting civil case.

Personally, I don't like malls at all and stay as far away from them as I can. Ugh. I hate crowds. And while I wouldn't mind (the hassles) being a test case, I sure don't have the money for it.

If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

fickman wrote:If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

I have lived in this area all of my life and have been there exactly twice. The first time I went through the skating rink becaus my grandkids were there. The second time is because We were doing work there . I made the initial site visit and meeting unarmed, quoted the job high enough I thought we wouldn't get it and still got it. Lined my men out from blue prints but never stepped foot back in the mall. My wife won't even go there and she is a shop-o-holic, but she also has her CHL and will not go anywhere unarmed

I think as a community, we should form a 'pact' to support anyone who becomes one of our "test cases" on things like this, and the others that we know exist (e.g., carrying in a govt owned building that's posted 30.06, etc.).
I know I can't afford the fight. Or if I do, I can temporarily, but it would destroy my daughter's college fund.

I would definitely put resources into a case for a respected member here, who I believed was a true test case (and not causing trouble).

Scott in Houston wrote:I think as a community, we should form a 'pact' to support anyone who becomes one of our "test cases" on things like this, and the others that we know exist (e.g., carrying in a govt owned building that's posted 30.06, etc.).
I know I can't afford the fight. Or if I do, I can temporarily, but it would destroy my daughter's college fund.

I would definitely put resources into a case for a respected member here, who I believed was a true test case (and not causing trouble).

1) If you're serious, a fund needs to be started now, not after an event occurs.
2) Here's a test case that you'll love - and as far as I can see the guy was completely within his rights. I believe he's extremely lucky because he had access to recording equipment so there isn't going to be a lot of LEO "expert" testimony that isn't backed by actual camera / recordings. If you're serious about 2nd amendment in Texas and serious about supporting someone else who has had trouble, consider supporting his cause:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... rifle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is video there so you can decide for yourself. He was originally stopped for open-carry of a rifle, arrested for "rudely displaying" (made up charge). I don't know what they actually charged him with after getting him to the PD... He was a CHL and was carrying a handgun in addition to the rifle.

I hope there is a big civil pay-day in it for him, but that's just my opinion.

I used to work security there. It's gone downhill... used to be fairly decent.

fickman wrote:If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

Well... if you know there's a 30.06 sign there, regardless of where you entered, I believe you've been notified.

"Someone on the internet said..." is what is known in Court as "hearsay."

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

MadMonkey wrote:I used to work security there. It's gone downhill... used to be fairly decent.

fickman wrote:If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

Well... if you know there's a 30.06 sign there, regardless of where you entered, I believe you've been notified.

I respectfully disagree. All I've done is hear anecdotes and tales from anonymous people on the Internet. . . strangers telling me they were notified or know a third party who was sometime in the past.

They may be mistaken. Or unfortunate. Or lying. Or playing a prank. Or spinning yarns. Or regaling us with tall tales. Or talking about a historical situation that is no longer true. Thankfully - at least in my reading of the CHL statutes - there's no clause to make the 30.06 law binding when told secondhand of somebody else's experience.

Similarly, if you are given oral notice not to carry by the manager of a restaurant and tell me about it, I am still legal to carry concealed.

I have never personally received effective notice at Grapevine Mills Mall.

If somehow I was discovered AND the cops were called. . . they can pull the security video that shows I never received notice. Maybe I'll take a ride anyway. Maybe I'll be a test case. I think most likely I'd say very politely that I entered through x store, never saw a sign, and am willing to leave. I'd likely be given oral notice and told to leave. If I took the ride. . . well, I think it's most likely the detective or prosecutor would not pursue it. If they did pursue it, I still think I'd win, but I'd definitely be looking for the NRA or my buddies here (all the lyin', exaggeratin', tall tale-telling folks I mentioned above) to help me out. . . and if I'd done everything right just the way I described in this scenario, I think it's likely that I would get that help.

Is it a risk? A small one. If I was revealed because I saved my life or the life of my family, well, I think that's a fair trade off.

Like I said, though, I doubt I'm in that mall more than once / year.

bdickens wrote:"Someone on the internet said..." is what is known in Court as "hearsay."

Hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

Wow. You got to the same point with a lot less typing.

I had the same information as Keith, but only from a LEO on site.

fickman wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:I used to work security there. It's gone downhill... used to be fairly decent.

fickman wrote:If I have to go, I enter through the skating rink or one of the anchor stores. I've never been legally notified that I'm not allowed to carry. Concealed is concealed.

Well... if you know there's a 30.06 sign there, regardless of where you entered, I believe you've been notified.

I respectfully disagree. All I've done is hear anecdotes and tales from anonymous people on the Internet. . . strangers telling me they were notified or know a third party who was sometime in the past.

They may be mistaken. Or unfortunate. Or lying. Or playing a prank. Or spinning yarns. Or regaling us with tall tales. Or talking about a historical situation that is no longer true. Thankfully - at least in my reading of the CHL statutes - there's no clause to make the 30.06 law binding when told secondhand of somebody else's experience.

Similarly, if you are given oral notice not to carry by the manager of a restaurant and tell me about it, I am still legal to carry concealed.

I have never personally received effective notice at Grapevine Mills Mall.

If somehow I was discovered AND the cops were called. . . they can pull the security video that shows I never received notice. Maybe I'll take a ride anyway. Maybe I'll be a test case. I think most likely I'd say very politely that I entered through x store, never saw a sign, and am willing to leave. I'd likely be given oral notice and told to leave. If I took the ride. . . well, I think it's most likely the detective or prosecutor would not pursue it. If they did pursue it, I still think I'd win, but I'd definitely be looking for the NRA or my buddies here (all the lyin', exaggeratin', tall tale-telling folks I mentioned above) to help me out. . . and if I'd done everything right just the way I described in this scenario, I think it's likely that I would get that help.

Is it a risk? A small one. If I was revealed because I saved my life or the life of my family, well, I think that's a fair trade off.

Like I said, though, I doubt I'm in that mall more than once / year.

Pretty good posts and replys but I dont really understand why so many want to 'test' the system ,seems childish to me , business's , schools others have rights too. We have gained more privilege in a short while than many special groups do in a lifetime . Testing our CHL rights will be very counterproductive , so far we have set an excellent example in our behavior and we are actually a privileged group of Texans . We are steadly making more progress and I see 'testing' or pushing the limits as being self-destructive . Look at the new amendments to the requirements as to carry and renewal , it's crazy to jeopardize our good record . I just do not have a hard time working around the present restraints set on me carrying and as time goes on our carry privilege's will grow .

Until somebody becomes a test case, it's all just idle chatter.