TexasCHLforum.com

PappaGun wrote:

jimlongley wrote:... TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.

Jim,
Is this a local interpretation from TSA?
I've lived in other parts of the country where carrying in the non-secure areas of the airport didn't seem to be an issue.
But I couln't tell you if that was local custom, a different TSA interpretaion or some thing else.
Does TSA jurisdiction extend in to the unsecured area of the airport?

No, TSA "jurisdiction" does not extend to the unsecured area, but that does not stop the local "Federal Security Director" (FSD) from attempting to make it so. At one point during my late lamented employment there, they were stationing us at baggage claim to check boarding passes against bag tags. Of course we were about 200% overstaffed at the time and they were trying to figure out what to do with the excess, but the sense of empowerment led to a couple of minor confrontations between TSA supervisors and the flying public before they cancelled that policy.

Due to differences between airport facilities, FSDs and their staffs are given a great deal of lattitude in implementation, and some of them just go a little too far. Each FSD has a number of airports to administer, so they rely on their staff (Assistant FSDs &c) to promulgate sets of rules that fit within the federal guidelines, and of course those guidelines, as with any other written word, are subject to misinterpretation.

And at Dallas Love Field one of the most famous was the day the AFSD told us, at a pre-opening meeting, that we could detain CHL holders found to be carrying at baggage check in. That one didn't last very long either.

And then there was the one where, as federal employees, we could not carry on airport PROPERTY because it was under federal jurisdiction, no parking lots, and not even if we were flying out as civilians. The parking lot prohibition was still on after I left, but the carry as a civilian traveler went waya eventually.

All subject to interpretation of the written word.

baldeagle wrote:However, that ain't my problem.

It will be if you run into one of the above mentioned LEOs who don't understand the actual law and think that gun busters signs are effective.

baldeagle wrote:And they are going to handcuff me and drag me away for what? I can't be charged with trespassing unless they either have a valid 30.06 sign or they have given me verbal notice. I then must be given the opportunity to comply with their reqeust. They can't simply charge me with trespassing because I'm there.

Good luck convincing the above mentioned LEO of that.

baldeagle wrote:And that's your privilege to think that way. But if they "catch" you, they must ask you to leave. They can't cause you problems simply because they "caught" you. (I don't like the term "catch", because it implies you have done something wrong, which you have not done.)

But they will think you have done something wrong, and they will have caught you.

baldeagle wrote:Their understanding is irrelevant.

Once again, you will have to explain that to the LEO who thinks the gunbusters sign is effective, as he cuffs you.

baldeagle wrote:Only the law is relevant. The law says they have to post a 30.06 sign if they don't want me armed in their store or upon discovering that I'm armed, they must ask me to leave. If that were to happen, I would apologize and tell the manager that since they did not have valid notification posted I was unaware that I wasn't allowed to carry in their store. If he then pointed me to the sign, my reply would be that the sign is not valid notification.

And that will convince them? I think not, you will probably wind up explaining it to a judge, and relying on HIS interpretation.

baldeagle wrote:Yet it is their responsibility to do so, just as it is mine to be knowledgeable of the laws that govern my conduct as a CHL holder.

Yes, and you will have ample opportunity to prove that to them, afterward.

baldeagle wrote:I'm disinclined to do that. I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. I'm not trying to "get away with something". I'm complying with the law. I expect retailers to do the same. When they don't, it is not my responsibility to educate them, unless they want to pay me as a consultant to advise them where to find the appropriate law.

And I am inclined to do that, and after they reply, as many do, that their signs are legal, adequate, posted because the city makes them (one of my favorites) and all of the other excuses, I still don't see any reason to give them my money.

baldeagle wrote:It's entirely possible that a business that posts a gunbuster sign does it intentionally to make its customers feel comfortable without ever intending to prevent legal carry. After all, any business of any size has lawyers to inform it of the legal requirements to prevent lawful carry.

And it's just as possible, maybe even moreso, that those lawyers are in some other state and haven't bothered to acquaint themselves with the specifics of TX law.

baldeagle wrote:You can't tell me that a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas.

Sure I can, just did, two major national/international companies that I worked for in the past had absolutely no clue, and when I tried to educate them denied that they had it wrong. Dallas Love Field still has 30.05 signs posted, despite letters and meetings, and DPD says they will consider anyone caught carrying to be trespassing. TSA, where I worked for three plus years also, despite "allowing" guns to be transported in checked bags, says CHL on airport property is illegal.

baldeagle wrote:So I see those signs as a wink-wink-nod-nod to gun owners while making people who are unaware of the law feel good about being in a gun free zone.

And good luck with that if you ever chance to be in the situation where you expect them to be winking and ndding and they are cuffing and dragging.

baldeagle wrote:It's not my job as a CHL holder to divine the store's intentions.

Which is why I will continue to err on the side of they have absolutely no idea what the law says but will still cause me problems if they catch me.

baldeagle wrote:It's my job to follow the law. Should management become aware of my concealed weapon and ask me to leave, I will do so politely and immediately. In the meantime, I will assume that the company and I are "in on the joke".

And it is their job to follow the law too, but if their understanding happens to run counter to yours . . .

baldeagle wrote:My position is at least as plausible as the alternative - that the company really doesn't want to allow legal carry but has no clue what the law really says.

Only if you first accept that ". . .a company the size of Babies(Toys)-R-Us isn't aware of the laws that govern the conduct of their business in Texas . . ." which I do not. The lawyers that tell them how to conduct their business in the state of Texas may very well spend absolutely no time reviewing the penal law, which has little or nothing to do with how they conduct their business.

baldeagle wrote:You also need to remember that many gunbuster signs are legacies of when the CHL law first passed and everyone freaked out about shootouts in the streets.

Which would mean that a simple letter informing them that their sign has no meaning should encourage them to remove it.

Keith B wrote:An yes, legally they must post a 30.06 per state law to legally keep you from carrying.

Well,they could comply with the law by posting someone at the door to announce their anti-carry policy to each person entering, or they could give you a printed card with the proper language on it.