TexasCHLforum.com

Internet gurus, I could use your help, my google-fu is not running strong today. I was told of a case where a person was charged for carrying past a gun-buster sign and was convicted, I believe for violating 30.06, since the intent of the sign was clear. This person appealed the decision, where the higher court upheld the conviction. The only details I have is that it would be around 2008-2012 in or around Dallas County. I do not know if the person had a CHL, but I believe that is how the story is being told. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

It's not possible to search for something that did not happen.

I would challenge the person who told you that to provide the evidence.

I would challenge the person who told the story to cite the case. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

jmra wrote:
I would challenge the person who told the story to cite the case. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

DPS LTC Instructor Instructor.
And no that is not a typo.

You're talking about 7 counties over a 5 year period. I'm not saying it can't have happened, but that is a lot to try to sift through with not much to go on. Several search iterations across google and bing turned up nothing. As well as a search of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals records for those years.

Jago668 wrote:You're talking about 7 counties over a 5 year period. I'm not saying it can't have happened, but that is a lot to try to sift through with not much to go on. Several search iterations across google and bing turned up nothing. As well as a search of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals records for those years.

I know, I tried to, but that's all the info he could give me, which seemed like very little information to go off of for influencing every set of LTC instructors to come through training recently, which goes directly against the wording of the law.

locke_n_load wrote:

jmra wrote:
I would challenge the person who told the story to cite the case. Sounds like an urban legend to me.

DPS LTC Instructor Instructor.
And no that is not a typo.

Then he shouldn't have any problem citing the case.

I know that I've been a member of this board since before that timeframe and I've never, ever heard of that case. I'd challenge him to cite it.

SewTexas wrote:I know that I've been a member of this board since before that timeframe and I've never, ever heard of that case. I'd challenge him to cite it.

Yep.

locke_n_load wrote:I was told of a case where a person was charged for carrying past a gun-buster sign and was convicted, I believe for violating 30.06, since the intent of the sign was clear. This person appealed the decision, where the higher court upheld the conviction. The only details I have is that it would be around 2008-2012 in or around Dallas County. I do not know if the person had a CHL, but I believe that is how the story is being told. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

Best thing I could find was: Tafel v. State, 10-14-00019-CR, 10-14-00020-CR, Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, August 31, 2016

The case is a bear. The prosecutor hit him with a charge each for his Kimber 45 and his .22 North American Arms BUG and filed to take his guns. Looks like there are two appeals (one for the criminal charges, and one to stop the forfeiture of the guns). I think Justice Scoggins wrote the majority opinion upholding the trial courts conviction and forfeiture. Justice Gray wrote a dissent (50+ pages?) that analyzes the case the way all of us would to throw out the convictions (Written notice requires Spanish and written permission can override a sign).

I'll take a stab at the story, but I'll probably get it wrong b/c I'm burnt out from reading Justice Gray's excellent, if overly thorough dissent. Corrections welcomed.

If you read the old 46.035, it prohibited carrying at a government meeting (c) and played the "unless posted" trick (i). Pretty clear to everyone here that the legislature wrote the most complicated statute possible to require 30.06 to be posted at government meetings if they want to prohibit carry. Duh. I suspect it was written backwards because it was amended, but I'm not a legal historian. Anyway...

Tafel was a County Commissioner for Hamilton County, he wants to carry at the meetings, so he starts asking questions. In response, it looks like Judge Mills did two things: 1) He posted a 30.06 sign in English ONLY; and 2) Gave Tafel written permission to carry at the meetings.

At the November 2011 meeting, Officer Nosey thinks he sees a bulge on Tafel, finds two guns, pops him for carrying, and doesn't give a darn about any letter from the guy who posted the sign incorrectly.

Trial court says it doesn't care about not having the sign in Spanish or having permission from someone with apparent authority. Appellate court gives deference to the fact finder and refuses to reverse. Conviction stands; guns forfeit.

It's a really rotten case because Tafel was trying to do the right thing and carry legally. By asking questions and getting permission, he alerted the authorities that someone might have a gun, so they should post. Even though the posting was wrong and he had permission, he got convicted and lost his guns. There appears to be some confusion at the trial court relating to negotiations about the charges and interpretation of the horribly written statute. To make matters worse, it was a bench trial so the record is crappy. Findings of fact and law would have been useful to fix the record, but it doesn't look like Tafel's attorney requested that.

I hope I didn't get the interpretation too wrong. Reading Justice Gray's dissent at midnight was a little too much.

Acronym 2/2/2017 12:38 AM

Acronym Esq wrote:Best thing I could find was: Tafel v. State, 10-14-00019-CR, 10-14-00020-CR, Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, August 31, 2016

Not a gun-buster sign, but wow, good find. I remember Tafel's name being mentioned somewhere, but never knew the details of the case. And, yeah, I think most everyone here would agree with Justice Gray's dissent.

It looks like all of the case numbers involved are: No. 10-14-00019-CR, No. 10-14-00020-CR, No. 10-14-00384-CV, No. 10-14-00385-CVA; Trial Court Nos. 15291 and 15292. A few links if folks want to dig farther:

https://casetext.com/case/tafel-v-state-1; majority opinion of the appellate court on cause one of the lower court decision, written by Justice Al Scoggins

https://casetext.com/case/tafel-v-state-2; majority opinion of the appellate court on cause two of the lower court decision, written by Justice Al Scoggins

https://casetext.com/case/tafel-v-state-3; contains the entire text of Justice Tom Gray's dissent...and no; I didn't read the whole thing, at least not yet

Dang. If a County Commissioner and otherwise upstanding individual isn't protected by the 30.06 law, we may want to rethink some of our "no one will take a ride" comments. Granted it is a single case, but it may show precedence that the next judge would hesitate to go against.

Was it: Ride, revocation (of LTC), and forfeiture?
or just: Ride and forfeiture?

How did we all miss this? How did we not hear about this through TSRA? Why is this the start to my Thursday?

Wow. It sounds like these judges are just making up the law on the fly (or at least amending the law on the fly). Terrible ruling. Terrible precedent.

I am struggling my way through the dissent. And I am concerned with my own cognative bias, because he seems to be hitting an incredible number of legal points with case law to back his views up. I wouldn't want him to be my father-in-law, but I'd always want him to be my judge.

1. Where in the penal code, if anywhere, does it state anything about written permission over ruling a 30.06 sign? I agree that written permission should cover his bases but maybe that's not how the code reads. I know a school can give permission.
2. I still don't see how a non complaint sign can be binding (no Spanish), when it is very clear that you must have the specific language.