TexasCHLforum.com

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, if the law enforcement agency provides a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun. The peace officer shall secure the handgun in the locker and shall return the handgun to the license holder immediately after the license holder leaves the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility.
(c) A law enforcement facility shall prominently display at each entrance to a nonpublic, secure portion of the facility a sign that gives notice in both English and Spanish that, under this section, a peace officer may temporarily disarm a license holder when the license holder enters the nonpublic, secure portion of the facility. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height. The sign shall be displayed in a clearly visible and conspicuous manner.
(d) In this section:
(1) "Law enforcement facility" means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "Nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility" means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business of the law enforcement agency.[/size]


My questions are :
1. I guess we are allowed to carrying in the police station unless they ask to disarm us, and then they must have a gun locker to secure?

2. If they don't have a sign posted at the facility, does that mean that you can carry all over the facility?

Essentially,
IF there is a proper sign posted. And IF, you enter a secured area (basically, behind locked doors) and IF they have a gun locker for you to use, they can disarm you.

My interpretation of your #2 question? Technically, yes.

Yes, this does not make "law enforcement facilities" off limits. It merely gives LEOs the authority to disarm if all those conditions are met. Of course, they already had authority to disarm if they reasonably believe it is necessary for the safety of the officer, the license holder, or a third party.

As I said in a discussion about this bill, it further enforces the idea that LEOs do not have blanket authority to disarm "just because".

Kevin

I just thought of something. Say for some reason you had to accompany a LEO to the station to "assist in an investigation" (witness, complainant, etc) and you went inside and there were a sign saying for example, "No guns beyond this point." As I have been told, certain areas of the facility officers have to disarm themselves, eg. booking, jail etc. Wherever.
As a CHL holder, is there a dilemma here?
1. Do you say something about being armed?
2. Do you ignore the sign since it is not 30.06?
3. Do you wait and see if they ever ask you about a weapon?

Clarify. What SHOULD you do? Or what are you REQUIRED to do?

Lucky45 wrote:I just thought of something. Say for some reason you had to accompany a LEO to the station to "assist in an investigation" (witness, complainant, etc) and you went inside and there were a sign saying for example, "No guns beyond this point." As I have been told, certain areas of the facility officers have to disarm themselves, eg. booking, jail etc. Wherever.
As a CHL holder, is there a dilemma here?
1. Do you say something about being armed?
2. Do you ignore the sign since it is not 30.06?
3. Do you wait and see if they ever ask you about a weapon?

I think it's clear that in that situation you should declare you were carrying and ask the LEO what you should do.

I suspect that is also what you are required to do, though I would personally regard that as immaterial.

I would not violate the sign, no matter how it was worded.

We're the good guys, remember. We are supposed to cooperate with LEO.

If the officers disarm, then you should speak up and ask about storing your own. If they don't, you're under no obligation to volunteer that you're armed, nor do you face any penalty if you carry into a "law enforcement facility" as defined in GC 411.207.

The only thing this new addition does is give LEOs the authority to determine if you're armed, and lock your handgun in a secure locker for the duration of your visit. It imposes no restrictions or penalties on the CHL.

I have to disagree about it being voluntary when you see the sign. This law does not require any specific wording as 30.06 does.

Interestingly enough, I am not sure what the charge would be if you did disobey the sign and not volunteer that you were armed. I do not see a specific violation for failure to disarm for the officer. I would assume he could use the interfering with the duties of a public servant charge, but it would be very touchy in cases like this.

Well let's see here. What are the requirements for, "interfering with the duties of a public servant "?

srothstein wrote:I have to disagree about it being voluntary when you see the sign. This law does not require any specific wording as 30.06 does.

Interestingly enough, I am not sure what the charge would be if you did disobey the sign and not volunteer that you were armed. I do not see a specific violation for failure to disarm for the officer. I would assume he could use the interfering with the duties of a public servant charge, but it would be very touchy in cases like this.

BrassMonkey wrote:Well let's see here. What are the requirements for, "interfering with the duties of a public servant "?

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

In practice, almost any action or inaction can be charged under this law.

- Jim

I am not seeing how excersizing(sp?) a state given right in a perfectly legal, albie tstupid manner meets any of those qualifications. Unfortunately, it is not against the law to be stupid anymore...

seamusTX wrote:

BrassMonkey wrote:Well let's see here. What are the requirements for, "interfering with the duties of a public servant "?

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

In practice, almost any action or inaction can be charged under this law.

- Jim

srothstein wrote:I have to disagree about it being voluntary when you see the sign. This law does not require any specific wording as 30.06 does.

Interestingly enough, I am not sure what the charge would be if you did disobey the sign and not volunteer that you were armed. I do not see a specific violation for failure to disarm for the officer. I would assume he could use the interfering with the duties of a public servant charge, but it would be very touchy in cases like this.

The sign, unlike a 30.06 sign, is not notice that CHLs can't carry there. It is "a sign that gives notice in both English and Spanish that, under this section, a peace officer may temporarily disarm a license holder when the license holder enters the nonpublic, secure portion of the facility". In other words, it notifies visitors that officers have the authority to disarm them.

If a visiting CHL isn't told to disarm, they don't commit any violation by not volunteering that they're carrying.

BrassMonkey wrote:I am not seeing how excersizing(sp?) a state given right in a perfectly legal, albie tstupid manner meets any of those qualifications. Unfortunately, it is not against the law to be stupid anymore...

I am not replying further to this point because I have no idea what you're trying to say.

- Jim