TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Where was the "should" question asked? What would the damages the "theater" or bowling alley/laser tag be based on? Would the cop or his department be liable? You have indicated before there would need to be damages to the plaintiff for a settlement to be rendered. What are the damages that justify a "big time" settlement?

Are you going to call me names if you dislike my answers?

What? I have not called you names and I do not intend to.

Just trying to understand your post as it seems to answer questions that weren't asked and contradict your previous posts regarding justification of damages.

I'm sorry that "call me names" was not intended as an insult. It was it was intended as a bit of a joke and it seems not to have been taken as such. People on here seem to get very worked up at times not because of anything I actually say that but because of my viewpoint I guess. I admit I have in the past gotten upset when I felt "attacked" and sometimes responded negatively, but lately it's just people getting worked up because I'm posting. That tongue in cheek comment was intended to lighten the mood and also indicate that if it was just to continue conflict I wasn't really interested in replying. I apologize if if you took it any other way as I really was not trying to imply that you had previously called me names nor was I really concerned with you directly calling me name.

As to the should I must of read the post too quickly and had "should" in mind when casp said should. As to the need for damages I thought that would be implied by the officer enforcement. If a cop just orders you to do something then no damages. If a cop orders you to do something that they are not allowed to do, then makes you do so or takes other action to enforce that order, then damages occur. A family in Houston was awarded over a million when a cop working off duty security at an apartment made a kid get out of a pool and walked him back to his apartment. Now I personally think that was a bit much for the actual "damages" but I don't know how and why it was decided so....

mojo84 wrote:
Where was the "should" question asked? What would the damages the "theater" or bowling alley/laser tag be based on? Would the cop or his department be liable? You have indicated before there would need to be damages to the plaintiff for a settlement to be rendered. What are the damages that justify a "big time" settlement?

Are you going to call me names if you dislike my answers?

casp625 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: What you are stating it's not the intent of laws allowing CHL for a weapon to be loaded. Thus any government entity can make you unload the weapon through enforcement by a LEO via this loophole.

Well my understanding is that a laws intent only matters if there is something ambiguous in the language otherwise it should be legal as read. A example where I was schooled on this was the legality of carrying a otherwise illegal knife with a chl. Because of the language CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons but the intent was just to make it legal to carry handguns. I thought the intent should matter. It doesn't. Through a loophole CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons. In this case it isn't a government agency but a private promoter posting what seems a previously unconsidered policy. And please be aware law enforcement cannot enforce house rules. Using cop to secure the weapons is one thing, but if they are at the door checking and directing people to have the guns secured it's a clear violation. Cop can't kick you out of a theater for bringing in outside food. An employee must ask you to leave and then a cop can make you do so.

Well, me and a friend went to a bowling alley that had laser tag and an arcade, both of us had on a sleeveless shirt. One employee greeted us at the door and as were about to pay for bowling, a police officer approached us and asked us to leave and come back with shirts with sleeves. The officer stated that it was against the establishments policy and he was just enforcing it. At no time did any employee ask us to leave for wearing a sleeveless. Are you saying I could have told him to kick rocks and went on with my business?

Should? That's a different question. I'm saying if that cop did anything to enforce that rule he would be wrong and the theater may end up paying out big time.

mojo84 wrote: Hogwash!! A loophole is legal and skirting the law and violating the law is not legal. You are wrong and you will never admit it.

You can read the rest on my prior comment if you want as I am done playing your game.

I have said several times why I think they may have a legal argument. The only real discussion on the facts has come from Mr.Cotton and from his response we are looking at different factors. So aside from people just getting worked up and telling me I'm wrong exactly why should I change my opinion? I have admitted when I think I'm wrong. Case in point was the arrest for an otherwise illegal knife of a member here. I thought the legislative intent might have an effect on the interpretation by the courts. It doesn't or at least shouldn't. While I do sometimes play devil's advocate here it it is just trying to be objective. Really if you were the city do you really think there is no chance you could get out of a SB273 violation in this case? From my understanding there is nothing stating any legal consequence for violating this unloaded gun policy. No mistakenly applied laws or old laws or any indication it's anything but a house rule. I'm not sure SB273 can be stretched to cover it. The city and promoter may be vulnerable to civil action or other legal consequences but fines through SB273? I have doubts.

puma guy wrote: What you are stating it's not the intent of laws allowing CHL for a weapon to be loaded. Thus any government entity can make you unload the weapon through enforcement by a LEO via this loophole.

Well my understanding is that a laws intent only matters if there is something ambiguous in the language otherwise it should be legal as read. A example where I was schooled on this was the legality of carrying a otherwise illegal knife with a chl. Because of the language CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons but the intent was just to make it legal to carry handguns. I thought the intent should matter. It doesn't. Through a loophole CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons. In this case it isn't a government agency but a private promoter posting what seems a previously unconsidered policy. And please be aware law enforcement cannot enforce house rules. Using cop to secure the weapons is one thing, but if they are at the door checking and directing people to have the guns secured it's a clear violation. Cop can't kick you out of a theater for bringing in outside food. An employee must ask you to leave and then a cop can make you do so.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If you are suggesting that SB273 won't cover ammo, then that's a non-starter. No, ammo was not mentioned but there is ample case law that deals with this type of attempt to avoid legislative intent. A city cannot set a minimum driving age of 21 years in violation of Texas law. What you are suggesting is that they could pass a city ordinance that makes it unlawful for someone under age 21 to put gasoline in a car. More importantly, there's no provision under state law for a promoter using public property to exclude persons for any reason related to ammo. Thus, there would be no criminal offense to be charged.

Chas.

Hey I'm definitely no legal expert but what I'm suggesting is that the sign they have up wouldn't violate SB273. I have doubts that they could be successfully fined for having that sign up. It isn't passing a law or ordinance, but a tenant of a city owned property posting a house policy that is not specifically addressed by law at this time. I have already said that ignoring the signs would in no way be a violation of any law nor would I think there could be any legal consequence.

mojo84 wrote:
I do not see the "loophole". It's just so.done trying to skirt the law. It's especially egregious when they use cops to do their dirty work.

Yes it is an attempt to skirt the law, that is basically the definition of a loophole. They figured out a way to effectively disarm people without taking away or preventing the carrying of a gun. It is not the equivalent to a 30.06 in that there is no LEGAL consequence to violating a house rule except expulsion. In the case of 30.06 there is such a consequence and in cases like these it is effectively the Government lying about the law.

Then there is the secondary issue of there being a real safety concern with a very few people at gun shows. There would be the one guy who carried concealed and whips out his gun to try a holster or mag, or to do a trade. If there is the slightest chance a person's gun would be handled at all at a show then it needs to be made safe and I find myself less than confident about all gun show attendees. This is not an endorsement just an acknowledgement of a reasonable concern.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Are you choosing to ignore that it is illegal for them to have the 30.06 sign up and prohibit concealed carry on city or county owned propert or are you just being obtuse for argument's sake?

Again it's just not a 30.06 sign or warning involved as far as it's been described. I think they are exploiting a loophole.

puma guy wrote:

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

It's the law not logic that we are dealing with here. This is in no way covered by SB273 that I can see. It's a loophole. Courts are not supposed to close loopholes. SB273 covers carrying the gun and and specifically 30.06 warnings. It says nothing about ammo. Now violating the house rule would mean nothing and all they could do is ask you to leave if caught, no way to legally arrest or any legal consequence. This isn't a 30.06 issue. 30.06 has legal consequences on violation. This, and your school thing, doesn't.

mojo84 wrote:Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

puma guy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

Hopefully the AG will decide. I don't want to drift off track here, but I have to ask the following question. If a government entity is fined for violating SB273 and continually repeats the same violation at what point does it become official oppression for the person/s ordering it?

It doesn't.

puma guy wrote: if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

Under the directions of a peace office at the entry table? I doubt it. And the fact that it would contradict doesn't automatically invalidate anything.[/quote]
You may be correct if directed by a peace officer. I am missing the point of the second statement.[/quote]
The fact that you can't unload without displaying doesn't automatically render the requirement to unload invalid or actionable. Additionally by the time it could get to court the "illegal" display issue will no longer be, well, illegal. Not really a winner of an argument IMO. While it seems clearly against the intention of the new law I see nothing that would violate the actual language of the law.

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

I wrote a letter to Mayor Johnny Isbel of Pasadena requesting that he disallow the posting of 30.06 signs at the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. There was no 30.06 sign there today.

There were two signs, one containing legal mumbo-jumbo about your ticket to enter was a license granted on the condition that you do not carry a loaded weapon inside. The other sign stated flatly that loaded weapons were prohibited. There was a uniformed police officer there enforcing the ban.

I took photos of the signs. The attorney general will have copies tomorrow, along with my official complaint.

If they allow you to enter and are just requiring you to unload I don't see that as violating the actual language of the law. The spirit maybe but..........

if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

Under the directions of a peace office at the entry table? I doubt it. And the fact that it would contradict doesn't automatically invalidate anything.

dhoobler wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

I wrote a letter to Mayor Johnny Isbel of Pasadena requesting that he disallow the posting of 30.06 signs at the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. There was no 30.06 sign there today.

There were two signs, one containing legal mumbo-jumbo about your ticket to enter was a license granted on the condition that you do not carry a loaded weapon inside. The other sign stated flatly that loaded weapons were prohibited. There was a uniformed police officer there enforcing the ban.

I took photos of the signs. The attorney general will have copies tomorrow, along with my official complaint.

If they allow you to enter and are just requiring you to unload I don't see that as violating the actual language of the law. The spirit maybe but..........