TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:However, since our statute is written on the assumption that a proper 30.06 sign is fully adequate notice, the statute does not require a "knowingly" standard at all. It assumes that a "reasonable person" would "know" to stay out because this huge sign gives adequate notice.

I had not considered this before, but the culpable mental state part is interesting. I think i was thinking the law required knowingly, as it does in other weapons violations, but it does not. Since there is no required state in the section, then it only requires a reckless mental state. this is from section 6.02. That may give DPS a basis for their argument about intent.

But, the wording of the law really shoots down that argument anyway. The written notice is specifically defined. The way the law is written, the oral notice may be anything, but the written notice ONLY counts if it matches exactly the legal wording. Note that the term written notice is defined in the code, not just given as an example. Anything other than the specific wording just doesn't count.

I think in this group we all realize this but I must say we owe thanks to TSRA and Charles for this benefit.

But once the DPS goes down that slippery slope of trying to assert we "know" a business's intent, we are stuck with the worst of both worlds.

I really don't think what DPS does matters in this, unless you are arrested by a DPS trooper. Nothing in the law gives them the option of interpreting the law, such as it does the Attorney General. You might get a lawyer/prosecutor that gives their opinion some weight, but any decent lawyer will be able to argue that in front of a judge and the wording of the law will be what wins. Of course, that does mean you have partially lost by getting in front of a judge to begin with.

Thanks. That certainly does give immunity to an instructor for a mistake in teaching.

wgoforth wrote:Unless it was while I was in the bathroom, immunity for the instructor was not covered.

Just curious, but I was unaware of any immunity for an instructor. Could someone explain to me where this immunity is.

My understanding of an instructor's liability is that he made be held liable for someone who performs an incorrect act based on poor teaching. For example, as applied to CHL instructor's, if a student uses force when he is not authorized to and claims it was how he was taught, the instructor may be held liable. I know this happens in the police world under the theory of respondeat superior but I honestly do not know if it applies to a private training scenario like a CHL instructor.

I really am curious about where or how the instructor would be immune from teaching poorly and the student making a bad decision based on the instruction.