TexasCHLforum.com

So sad, that a law abiding person. with a license to carry, is treated in such a manner. He says, he carries to protect himself, and his family, but I would bet that he would not hesitate, to have his officers, arrest, a LTC holder, who was in a prohibited, location. I think it's great that the doctor's receptionist, demanded that he leave his gun, or leave, because, they would do exactly the same thing to us. This is why I was so disappointed, that HB 560, didn't go anywhere this last session. LEO, are routinely waved through court house security, even if they are not there on official business. They are allowed to carry in schools even off duty. While 30.06 and 30.07 signs don't apply to LEO, I am glad that he got a feel for our frustration.

As the doctor admitted, this was wrong and never should have happened. The Police Chief doesn't make law, so I don't understand why you guys are attacking him for carrying his gun to protect his family.

The Chief was wrong about one thing, the law did not allow them to require him to leave because he was carrying a gun. TPC §30.05 is the statute that would be used to do so and it was amended in 2015. TPC §30.05 does not apply to a peace officer with a handgun whether or not he/she is on duty or off duty, if the reason for excluding them is because they have a handgun.

Chas.

TPC §30.05(i) wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

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

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

My problem was not with the police chief's actions, involved with carrying. My issue deals more with his reaction to being embarrassed, and even going on social media, to complain. As well as making this incident so monumental as to advise his kids to forego law enforcement, as a career. I realize he was wrongfully asked to leave, due to misinformation provided to staff, but, my point was that LTC holders, are routinely denied entry, to most places police are not.

Jusme wrote:My problem was not with the police chief's actions, involved with carrying. My issue deals more with his reaction to being embarrassed, and even going on social media, to complain. As well as making this incident so monumental as to advise his kids to forego law enforcement, as a career. I realize he was wrongfully asked to leave, due to misinformation provided to staff, but, my point was that LTC holders, are routinely denied entry, to most places police are not.

If I understand it a LEO is always on duty. I don't think that this is a "feel of the other side" issue. The guy was just following the law. Texas legislators make the laws. Doctor's office really messed up. I don't like that LEO gets to carry more places than LTC does but that's the legislator's fault.

Texas ENT Office Manager Ryan Johnson called Dupuis to apologize. Johnson told The Courier they have the same signage regarding firearms as any other doctor's office

Appears the office manager is also unaware that there is no requirements for doctors offices to post "same signage" restricting open and concealed carry. He is either trying to cover his lack of training the office staff properly or covering his bias against legally owned firearms.

rotor wrote:If I understand it a LEO is always on duty. I don't think that this is a "feel of the other side" issue. The guy was just following the law. Texas legislators make the laws. Doctor's office really messed up. I don't like that LEO gets to carry more places than LTC does but that's the legislator's fault.

While an LEO is a LEO 24 hours at day seven days a week, it is a commonly held myth that
an LEO is "always on duty". It is simply not true.

That said, I don't have a problem with him carrying in his doctor's office or anywhere else it is legal.

WildBill wrote:

rotor wrote:If I understand it a LEO is always on duty. I don't think that this is a "feel of the other side" issue. The guy was just following the law. Texas legislators make the laws. Doctor's office really messed up. I don't like that LEO gets to carry more places than LTC does but that's the legislator's fault.

While an LEO is a LEO 24 hours at day seven days a week, it is a commonly held myth that
an LEO is "always on duty". It is simply not true.

That said, I don't have a problem with him carrying in his doctor's office or anywhere else it is legal.

As a LEO, I could carry anywhere, except the secured areas, of a jail or prison. I also agree, that the chief's ability to do so, when LTC are prohibited, is the fault of the legislature. I just wish we could get everyone past the idea, that we are somehow, more likely to commit crimes, than LEO. To me though, the chief, should have just handled, this issue more privately, explained the situation to the doctor(s) in charge, and it would have been no big deal. But when he went on his rant, on social media and then spoke to the press, he did himself no favors.JMHO

WildBill wrote:

Jusme wrote:My problem was not with the police chief's actions, involved with carrying. My issue deals more with his reaction to being embarrassed, and even going on social media, to complain. As well as making this incident so monumental as to advise his kids to forego law enforcement, as a career. I realize he was wrongfully asked to leave, due to misinformation provided to staff, but, my point was that LTC holders, are routinely denied entry, to most places police are not.

I also agree, it seems as if he thinks of himself as above the law and not realizing that because of his servitude, that laws may apply to him differently. Then to say what he said about his children, it seems he maybe raising snowflakes. If I am wrong with any of this I sincerely apologize. However, I do applaud his decision to not make a scene at the time, knowing that why he was asked to leave was not the right circumstance but also knowing that there was a circumstance where he could be required to leave. Kinda like the LTC holder who says "old sign, it doesn't apply." and then proceeds with an attitude. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right in all applications. When no laws are being broken, police officers are servants to the law abiding citizenry. Some of them tend to have a problem understanding this, especially those with the attitude that "they are the law".

https://www.texas3006.com/view.php?id=11082

photo at https://www.texas3006.com/getimage.php?id=4346

WildBill wrote:

Jusme wrote:My problem was not with the police chief's actions, involved with carrying. My issue deals more with his reaction to being embarrassed, and even going on social media, to complain. As well as making this incident so monumental as to advise his kids to forego law enforcement, as a career. I realize he was wrongfully asked to leave, due to misinformation provided to staff, but, my point was that LTC holders, are routinely denied entry, to most places police are not.

He makes even the most extreme OCTers look and sound like mature adults.