TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 made the following comment in a thread on HB1815 earlier and rather than divert that thread I thought I would introduce his interesting points in a seperate one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure this one out...

Remember our recent N/D at a recent Houston gunshow???

The guy ended up only being charged with one count of "deadly conduct", a misdemeanor...

With all the things he violated going into a gunshow with a weapon that ended up having a round chambered while "clearing" the weapon before he intended to hand it to another person...

Obvious the 30.06, and the desire of the gunshow promoters to not have loaded weapons inside the premises...

I have to wonder why it only ended up being a misdemeanor offence, and the only reason was that the gun went off during a clearing exercise, which is what we do as a common safety courtesy for others who wish to handle our firearms...

Interesting how these things pan out...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have long been bothered by the 30.06 postings at gunshows. I have no quarrel with people on private property and/or at private functions having control over their environment. My question is whether on not 30.06 is the correct means to their end.

As we all know here, 30.06 only covers one, relatively small, group of people regarding a very specific item. It covers only CHL holders possessing handguns without regard as to whether or not the weapon is loaded.

We all know of the negligent discharges at gun shows recently which have caused these signs to be in place. My question is whether a 30.06 sign is the one best suited to accomplish the intended purpose.

My thinking is that gunshows really don't want to keep handguns out. They want to keep LOADED FIREARMS out. Since handguns are part of their stock and trade, and they are often traded at the show, they surely don't want to keep them out. In fact, even with 30.06 signs in place, they are giving tacit permission to have the handgun, even concealed, when they tie your weapon and give it back to you. 30.06 doesn't cover a loaded magazine in your pocket that you did not present to them. It also does not cover cutting the tie after you leave the door.

30.06 also does not affect everyone else who is permitted to enter the show with a handgun. Additionally there is no law covering the possession of ammunition.

It seems to me that the trespassing statute, 30.05, would be a better way to accomplist the goal of the gun shows, which is to have no loaded firearms in the show. We all know that 30.05 does not apply to a CHL if the only reason is the handgun, but couldn't the trespassing restriction be limited to the AMMUNITION IN ANY FIREARM? That would cover both CHL's and non-CHL's and better accomplish the overall goal of safety in the show.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

I hope that this concept does not get adopted by gunshows as it might give an idea to others who might want to try to apply the concept. I almost hesitate to bring up the topic for that reason, but it is an interestig concept, at least to me.

Personally I think that the real answer is tough and public prosecution of the people who cause the ND and/or cause injury or damage with their bad or careless behavior, but it sometimes seems that the boat has left the dock on personal responsibility.

I invite your obsevations and comments. I may be way off base and would certainly defer to others with more knowledge and experience.

That's an interesting proposition. I hope some of the legal types can speak to 30.05 and how it can be used.

I don't know how serious a crime "deadly conduct" is, but I wonder if it is the appropriate charge (especially if it is a felony). When a LEO has a ND in his hotel room that goes through several walls, is he convicted of a felony and stripped of his job and right to carry a handgun? If any of these events caused serious injury to a third party, then deadly conduct might be the appropriate charge (for LEO and CHL).

At a minimum, regardless of the 30.06 posting, any person carrying a non-zip-tied handgun would be presumed to be carrying under their CHL. The moment they uncovered their gun, they should be charged with failure to conceal. I'd waive that charge if I were the DA and the gun was unloaded and they were unconcealing it at the check-in desk. This is only a midemeanor, though.

In summary, I agree that 30.06 may not be the correct means to the desired end of no loaded weapons at gun shows (I'd include rifles as well as hanguns). I'm interested to see if your solution or any others come up as winners.

For reference, here is 30.05:

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense
if he enters or remains on property, including an aircraft, of another
without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of
another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone
with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude
intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to
the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders,
indicating that entry is forbidden;
--snip--
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at
the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical
services personnel, as that term is defined by Section 773.003, Health
and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty
under exigent circumstances.
(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense
under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the
offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center; or
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person
during the commission of the offense.
(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent or if
without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing or other
form, the person:
(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of the boundary
of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to
depart but failed to do so.

This is a very interesting and workable concept for non-CHL's, but I don't think it would work for CHL's. (We'd better hope it doesn't work, or we'll see government property posted with 30.05 signs with the sole restriction being no live ammo. Since governmental entities can use 30.05, then CHL's would have a big problem.)

I don't think a CHL could be prosecuted for violating 30.05, when the exclusion was based upon ammo that is an integral and necessary part of a defensive handgun. To carry this to an absurd extreme, a property owner couldn’t use 30.05 to bar a CHL with a handgun, but he could bar holsters, or pistol sights. In law school, I remember reading a case dealing with a city ordinance that was intended to quell a demonstration by a civil rights group. The ordinance prohibited noises over a specific (very low) decibel level and the city claimed it was directed at megaphones. However, the evidence showed the limit would prohibit anyone from speaking any louder than a whisper, so the court held it violated the 1st Amendment, regardless of the motive claimed by the city. As in this case, allowing a property owner to prohibit ammo under 30.05 would effectively gut the provision in 30.05 that prohibits it use based solely on a handgun and it would also circumvent the clear legislative intent behind the creation of TPC §30.06.

I think an appellate court would hold that a property owner has a method to bar armed CHL's (i.e. 30.06) and that an integral part of a defensive handgun cannot be prohibited under 30.05.

As I said, I believe it would work for non-CHL's.

Chas.

As it has been discussed before the 30.06 sign has no validity in the George R. Brown. Its city property.

The shooter could have also been charged with discharging the weapon within city limits which is a city ordinance.

Perhaps the charge of deadly conduct was a part of a plea. Although I wouldn't want to see him get away scott free, the charges seem apropriate. The only damages we are familiar with are his own self inflicted to his hand. A lesson is learned not only by himself but a point made to ourselves.

Even though I have not seen it yet, I anticipate a very aggressive effort by the folks at the front door to these gunshow events to be stepping up their inquiries, short of searching bags and the like...

Who knows...Maybe the gunshow promoters are having to struggle with this issue now that we've had an accident at one of our local shows...

Either they step up the front door efforts, or the insurance companies underwriting these events may not insure them...

So the gunshow organizers are kinda dirned if they do, and dirned if they don't...

I guess I hope the heat has not been turn up as much as I fear...

Echhh, maybe nothing will happen...

The problem here, as I see it, is that rules cannot ban stupidity by people who are determined to ignore the rules.

We already have rules that would prevent all negligent discharges if followed (the four rules of gun safety), and violating them at a gun show will most likely result in criminal charges.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 wrote:Even though I have not seen it yet, I anticipate a very aggressive effort by the folks at the front door to these gunshow events to be stepping up their inquiries, short of searching bags and the like...

Who knows...Maybe the gunshow promoters are having to struggle with this issue now that we've had an accident at one of our local shows...

Either they step up the front door efforts, or the insurance companies underwriting these events may not insure them...

So the gunshow organizers are kinda dirned if they do, and dirned if they don't...

I guess I hope the heat has not been turn up as much as I fear...

Echhh, maybe nothing will happen...

This isn't the first time there has been a AD at a gunshow. No one was hurt except the shooter. Is there something unique about this instance?

Why add new laws when the old ones cover it?

Interestingly enough, there was no 30.06 sign at the Pasadena gun show this weekend. Instead they had signs up about the minimum ages for gun purchases and the penalty for stealing from an FFL.

Keith

GlockenHammer wrote:For reference, here is 30.05:

You forgot one important part of 30.05:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Actually, Dallas Love Field has already had this idea:



Click on the image for a full size picture.