Search found 3 matches

Return to “A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09”

by jamullinstx
Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:36 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09
Replies: 358
Views: 57475

Re: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09

Boomerang, you won't find any such law, but you are misinterpreting the law that does exist. The law requires the CHL holder to present to a LEO when asked for identification. It doesn't prohibit anyone else from asking; the CHL is free to ignore such requests from other than LEO. The consequences of such refusal are up to the requester, not the law.

In this case, however, the issue is that a prohibition on the government is circumvented by a private entity through the lease.
boomerang wrote: I can't find any law requiring someone to display their CHL to anyone but a peace officer or magistrate, nor any law prohibiting someone from refusing to display their CHL to the gate attendant. Whereas anything not forbidden is permitted, we're permitted to refuse to display a CHL to a gate attendant.

If he purchased a ticket for entry, on what basis are they denying entry? Because he had a concealed handgun.
by jamullinstx
Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:30 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09
Replies: 358
Views: 57475

Re: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09

This issue has gotten me riled, not because I give a whit about the State Fair of Texas -- I don't. I've never attended, and am not sure I ever will.

I just don't think the law should be circumvented by leasing land from an entity with statutory prohibitions against certain behaviors. IMHO the statute places an encumbrance on the property, and leasing it to a private entity doesn't relieve the encumbrance. The land is leased with all applicable conditions on the lessee, or find another property to lease.

Private entities can discriminate against all manner of minority under many conditions, but the government cannot. Can the Klan then lease a government property and prohibit their least favored minority just by virtue of being a private organization? We wouldn't be having this discussion if such were the case; we'd be reading about a civil rights investigation.

The solution to the present example may be simple -- absolutely provide that the only way to prevent CHL access to premises is via posting 30.06, except for the blanket prohibitions (prisons, etc., although I'd like to see more of these lifted -- sporting events, schools, etc.). If a lessee wants to use wands, then so be it, but they must post 30.06, and if not allowed to post 30.06, then they must grant CHLs access, wands or no wands. The wands then serve to prohibit unlicensed carry, as they should.
by jamullinstx
Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:23 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09
Replies: 358
Views: 57475

Re: A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09

Steve,

I don't interpret the statutes in exactly the way that you do. I agree that they can ask for the information, and I think the CHL holder can legally refuse. At that point, I think the statute is clear by preventing government owned or leased property from posting 30.06 that the legislature's intent was to allow CHL holders to carry on such property. The law doesn't provide an exception for private parties leasing land from a government entity. The property remains owned by the government entity, thus the statute still applies. Allowing CHL holders into the event is part of the price of getting the favorable lease from the government entity. If they wish to exclude CHL holders they can lease privately owned property, or buy their own property.

At the point where the CHL refuses to allow his information to be collected, they should have no choice but to let them through, as clearly their stated reasons for the policy are made moot by virtue of the fact that they "shred the information at the end of the day."
srothstein wrote: Yes, they both can do so right now and you would have the same option there as at the state fair. Say no and leave the property or comply. There is no law forbidding their doing so, and being real private property (as opposed to the state fair being on government owned property), they have an even stronger claim on what they can do by policy.

There is an obvious fallacy in the logic of the people who claim that they will only show their CHL to a police officer. The State Fair is the perfect example of why. They cannot post 30.06, but can bar anyone not licensed from entering while armed and are using metal detectors. They do not need to haev peace officers at every gate (I know they do, but there is no requirement for it). The security guards could legally and properly deny you entry for refusing to show them you CHL.

The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time. I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

Return to “A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09”