TexasCHLforum.com

wford wrote:I am curious as to what your involvement is with Texas LEO training which would allow you to describe the knowledge of "most officers" and the level of training they receive on the penal code.

Knowledge of their Training? None. However, even if it was covered in their training, it is one of those small things that they probably never will have to deal with, so it gets 'lost'. I know I've lost TONS of things from previous training I've had.

Personal Experience? Lots. I work with officers from various agencies very frequently.
I have discussed some of these topics with various officers during my work, which can sometimes take quite some time, so we have some time to chat. Generally, it starts with a "Hey, is that a <Insert Gun that is on their hip at the time>? How do you like it?" approach, carrying on from there. I've found, that, as stated above, the officers I have talked to know the basics. That it's allowed, the card, and most of them that I spoke to knew of the "Large Ugly Sign" Requirement (as one officer put it) to prevent them from carrying it. Beyond that, though, they did not seem to know the various 'minor' technicalities.

I don't fault them for it though. As a proof of concept, I submit this:

I'm assuming that lots of people here have taken CPR Training at one point or another in their lives.
How many Compressions per how many breaths are you supposed to give over how long of a time frame?
With one person?
With 2 people?

No Cheating! Chances are, even if you have received the training, unless you deal with it Frequently enough, or go through frequent refresher training, you won't remember that information off the top of your head.
Oh, By the way, it's changed a few times over the past decades ;) (Just like CHL Law!) So if you quote the old numbers, or refer to an old poster you may have, you are still wrong

My point is, that specific things that we don't use often, or at all, even if we get occasional training, are easily forgotten. That's why LEO's may not know all the subtleties of CHL law. They have bigger things to worry about on a daily basis.

Wisewr wrote:

wford wrote:Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

No I don't because these signs do not apply to the CHL holder. The 30.06 sign does when it is posted correctly and on the right building.

Dealing with the police is probably indeed a slippery slope with some LEO's. Some know their stuff and these are the guys that you don't need to worry about. It's the ones who only know half the law that will get you in trouble. In this case the half of the law some know is that where there is a 30.06 sign it is illegal for the CHL holder to carry. The part they don't know is the part we're discussing here in this thread.

Judging by the number of people that post on these forums, that have gone through the class, that still aren't sure about 30.06 signs on govt property, as well as things like church carry, I'm pretty sure that most officers would probably consider a 30.06 on a library valid. Their training probably was along the lines of "30.06 = no carry" without all the extra stipulations.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:Here's a question that I haven't seen mentioned: Is it possible that the library is used for other purposes than a library, such as city council meetings? A meeting of a governmental entity would validate the 30.06 (during the meeting) under TPC Section 46.035.

True, but only during the meeting, and generally, a council meeting generally only posts 30.06 signs in the portion of the building in which the meeting is being held. (Remember, Premises is 'building or portion of a building')
In a small library, this may mean the entire building, but in a larger one it could only be one section.

Keith B wrote:

dicion wrote:On the school thing, Charles has given his professional opinion on it in another thread.

According to him, the 'location of a school function' clause does not apply outside of school property, due to the legal requirements of a statute, among other things.
So a school function, Not on school property, does not prevent you from carrying, according to his legal opinion as a professional lawyer versed in firearms and CHL law.

Good enough for me.

I may be incorrect, but I believe his view was that a school group showing up at a library, museum, zoo, etc while you were there would not make that place off-limits if you weren't participating in the school trip. However, I believe that if there is a school sponsored event that you are attending (i.e. school football game at a professional stadium, school concert at a public auditorium, etc.) you would be bound by the law and could not carry. IANAL, but that is my interpretation of what he implied.

His arguement hinged on a couple of facts, one of the most prominent being that the school had to have the authority to grant permission at a location, for it to be denied by default.
If the school had the authority to do so, which it may have at a football game at a privately/company owned stadium if they were paying to rent or otherwise use it, etc, then it could very well fall under this.
However, a publically owned auditorium, if used by the school, without rental or other agreement, I don't believe the school would have that authority, so in that case it would not.

Basically, unless the school had legal authority to grant permission on a property, it is not denied by default.

On the school thing, Charles has given his professional opinion on it in another thread.

According to him, the 'location of a school function' clause does not apply outside of school property, due to the legal requirements of a statute, among other things.
So a school function, Not on school property, does not prevent you from carrying, according to his legal opinion as a professional lawyer versed in firearms and CHL law.

Good enough for me.