A few questions about LEOs and CHL

[txinvestigator]

I
If the off duty officer had refused to leave based on the door person's refusal to admit, I guess the management could ask them to leave and then call the police and file a CT complaint. The management could simply tell the responding officers that they asked the off duty officer to leave the premises and the off duty officer was refusing to leave.

A private business owner is not required to tell the police, and the police are not required to ask a private business owner, why a patron is being asked to leave the premises of a private business, only that the management wants the patron gone and the patron refuses. By nature of refusing to leave a private business when requested a person is creating a disturbance if their refusal to leave requires the police to be called.

I been around, busy mostly.

So the officer tells the on duty guys that they simply won't let him in because of his gun, and the police tell the owner that he cannot prohibit the off duty for that reason. ;)

Creating a distrubance? so what, Texas has no disturbance laws. we have disorderly conduct, but is has very specific languange. Its a nice stretch, but it don't reach.

The bottom line is the cop would be smart to leave, but he does not have to if the reason for his refused entry is his possession of a gun.

So new we have a "mexican stand-off".

Cop won't leave.

Owners won't let him in.

Cops called to scene apparently have no basis for acting.

Everybody gets to stand around looking at everybody else.

LOL I agree it is silly, which is why CHL/LEO and his buddies are smart to just boycott the place.

[Penn]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

[srothstein]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

[srothstein]

After serving for 8.5yrs as an Environmental Analyst(Biochemist) I'm seriously considering a career change to.........you guessed it, LE. Any words of advise for someone considering a career in LE? By the way, my questions above are in no way related to my contemplation of career changes. Thanks again.

I have a lot of advice on it. My first is to not do it if you want to earn a good living. There are a few officers out there who really do make a decent income (over 6 figures) but they are few. There are a lot of officers out there who make around $30K annually.

Some serious advice would be to try it to see if you really like it. Most of the regional academies have a night academy class. It takes about a year that way, but you can go to class and get your license without having to give up your other job. Then you can volunteer for some department as a reserve (or part-time unpaid regular as some call it, and I heard a new one in a class today where they are calling them support officers). This means you are a fully certified and authorized police officer but you work one shift per week (sometimes less) and do not get paid.

It is a great way to really see if it is for you.

Other than that, check ride-alongs and citizen police academy programs at the departments in your area. They are another way to get a taste of the job.

You can ask me any questions you would like, and I will try to answer. Use PM and then we can go to e-mail so we don't tie up the forum.

[Odin]

I
If the off duty officer had refused to leave based on the door person's refusal to admit, I guess the management could ask them to leave and then call the police and file a CT complaint. The management could simply tell the responding officers that they asked the off duty officer to leave the premises and the off duty officer was refusing to leave.

A private business owner is not required to tell the police, and the police are not required to ask a private business owner, why a patron is being asked to leave the premises of a private business, only that the management wants the patron gone and the patron refuses. By nature of refusing to leave a private business when requested a person is creating a disturbance if their refusal to leave requires the police to be called.

I been around, busy mostly.

So the officer tells the on duty guys that they simply won't let him in because of his gun, and the police tell the owner that he cannot prohibit the off duty for that reason. ;)

Creating a distrubance? so what, Texas has no disturbance laws. we have disorderly conduct, but is has very specific languange. Its a nice stretch, but it don't reach.

The bottom line is the cop would be smart to leave, but he does not have to if the reason for his refused entry is his possession of a gun.

The private business owner is not required to articulate his reason for refusal of entry. A private business owner who calls the police and says "I have a person on my premises who is refusing to leave after being asked to do so by management" will have an officer show up and instruct the person to leave. If the person refuses to leave the business owner can file criminal trespass charges.

Nowhere in the penal code is a private property owner required to have a police officer to consider his reasons for asking a person to leave his private property before the officer enforces PC30.05.

Everyone involved may be certain that the reason the ODO is being asked to leave is because of the firearm, but nothing in the law says that the private property owner is required to justify asking a person to leave the premises, meaning regardless of what the reason is if the person controlling the private property says you must leave, you must leave.

If pressed for an answer the private property owner could simply say "because I want him off the premises" and that's the end of the matter.

The ODO would not be guilty of criminal trespass for taking a firearm on private property that prohibited firearms, the ODO would be guilty of criminal trespass for refusing to leave private property after receiving notice to leave and refusing to do so.



§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

[Odin]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

A property owner can refuse service to a handicapped person and if the handicapped person calls the police there is nothing the police can do to force the property owner to comply with the federal statute.

Police don't hear civil rights cases and decide them, the courts do. Unless a criminal law is being broken the handicapped person's recourse would be to sue for violation of his rights.

Under what penal code violation would the police take enforcement action against such a property owner?

[Photoman]

Are they allowed to carry in a church with a CHL, without having to ask permission?

Any CHL holder may carry in a church unless the church is posted 30.06.

...or they have been given verbal or written notice.

[srothstein]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

A property owner can refuse service to a handicapped person and if the handicapped person calls the police there is nothing the police can do to force the property owner to comply with the federal statute.

Police don't hear civil rights cases and decide them, the courts do. Unless a criminal law is being broken the handicapped person's recourse would be to sue for violation of his rights.

Under what penal code violation would the police take enforcement action against such a property owner?

If he calls the FBI, they can enforce it criminally. Civil rights violations are a federal crime, as many cops have found out the hard way.

I don't see the FBI taking the case as a high priority, but it could happen. There is also the case of the governor sending in the National Guard to force it along, as has happened.

But my point was that there is clear legal precedent that the owner of the property does not have the full control over the property that you thought he did, and it is legal to pass non-discrimination laws. The laws may be civil or criminal in nature, and may prohibit discrimination for any reason. So far, we have seen laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, age, religious belief, previous servitude, and sexual orientation. This just prohibits discrimination based on weapons and LEO status.

[G.C.Montgomery]

...My first is to not do it if you want to earn a good living...

On the subject of a law enforcement career, the statement above was one of the biggest reasons I stayed on the information technology path when I hit a crossroads last year. I might be able to eventually get back to my current payrate but, it would take several promotions and lots of overtime to do it with any of the local agencies. And in the meantime, my wife would see me a lot less often than she does now and there'd be a significantly greater risk of me not coming home at the end of the day. Those were deal breakers for the both of us.

[jazr45acp]

Though I do make a good living in what I do at the moment, I've come to a crossroads in my life where my sanity is in jeopardy if I stay at my present position. I've always seen myself in public service in one facet or another. Here at NBPD the starting pay is 43K+ after completing the academy. This is just a bit lower than what I make now, but again, if my sanity goes here where I'm at now, then is it worth it? I think not. I received a job posting for the academy yesterday via email so I'm off to HR to pick up an application. Thanks for the insight guys. It's great to have a resource such as this forum to find info. and answers to questions that might otherwise go unanswered. Later.

[Penn]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

A property owner can refuse service to a handicapped person and if the handicapped person calls the police there is nothing the police can do to force the property owner to comply with the federal statute.

Police don't hear civil rights cases and decide them, the courts do. Unless a criminal law is being broken the handicapped person's recourse would be to sue for violation of his rights.

Under what penal code violation would the police take enforcement action against such a property owner?

If he calls the FBI, they can enforce it criminally. Civil rights violations are a federal crime, as many cops have found out the hard way.

I don't see the FBI taking the case as a high priority, but it could happen. There is also the case of the governor sending in the National Guard to force it along, as has happened.

But my point was that there is clear legal precedent that the owner of the property does not have the full control over the property that you thought he did, and it is legal to pass non-discrimination laws. The laws may be civil or criminal in nature, and may prohibit discrimination for any reason. So far, we have seen laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, age, religious belief, previous servitude, and sexual orientation. This just prohibits discrimination based on weapons and LEO status.

Many places already ban people with guns. I don't think your civil rights violation theory would hold up, otherwise, someone would have already challenged it.

Hmm, the mall won't let me in with a gun - I'm gonna sue, thats the same thing as keeping a handicap person out. Sounds kind of funny.


EDIT: Is it your position that if someone was arrested based on 30.06, that they could fight it based on discrimination?

[pt145ss]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

Handicapped people are in a federally protected class of citizens. There is a huge difference between someone who is handicapped as opposed to someone who is carrying a firearm.

I can see a business owner being sued because they said to someone…I’m not going to allow you entry because you are gay…or because you are over 60 years old…or because I don’t like your religion. But I can not see a business owner being sued because he denied entry to someone who is armed off duty LEO or not (on duty is a different story).

Don’t get me wrong…I wish CHLers were a protected class of citizens that could not be discriminated against.

[Odin]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

A property owner can refuse service to a handicapped person and if the handicapped person calls the police there is nothing the police can do to force the property owner to comply with the federal statute.

Police don't hear civil rights cases and decide them, the courts do. Unless a criminal law is being broken the handicapped person's recourse would be to sue for violation of his rights.

Under what penal code violation would the police take enforcement action against such a property owner?

If he calls the FBI, they can enforce it criminally. Civil rights violations are a federal crime, as many cops have found out the hard way.

I don't see the FBI taking the case as a high priority, but it could happen. There is also the case of the governor sending in the National Guard to force it along, as has happened.

But my point was that there is clear legal precedent that the owner of the property does not have the full control over the property that you thought he did, and it is legal to pass non-discrimination laws. The laws may be civil or criminal in nature, and may prohibit discrimination for any reason. So far, we have seen laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, age, religious belief, previous servitude, and sexual orientation. This just prohibits discrimination based on weapons and LEO status.

So we agree that the police could do nothing about it other than possibly telling the person to call the FBI (good luck getting them to run code to that call ).

[GrillKing]

I believe this only fixes a loophole in the law whereby an off-duty LEO would previously be in violation of tresspass laws for carrying their duty weapon past a ghostbusters or no guns sign. This corrects that. For example, picking up dry cleaning after work, or a bite to eat.

I believe a business can still prohibit the off duty (or probably more correctly a LEO not there on 'official business') from entry by any of an infinite number of other reasons: dress code, you stink, or even just I don't want law enforcement on the property. The statute doesn't address allowing law enforcement on property, it addresses not prohibiting based solely on the weapon.

Of course prohibiting a law abiding, paying customer because they happen to be armed is stupid.

IANAL, but I believe this to be true.

[txinvestigator]

I wonder what the thought process was when this law was written because it sure does sound like a loophole. How can they take away a property owners right to remove (or deny access to) anyone that they want from their property? Just doesn't sound logical.

They do it all the time. SCOTUS said it was legal back in the 60's with a case from Georgia IIRC.

When was the last time you saw a property owner who could refuse to serve someone who was handicapped? The feds even make you modify your building to allow him entry.

A property owner can refuse service to a handicapped person and if the handicapped person calls the police there is nothing the police can do to force the property owner to comply with the federal statute.

Police don't hear civil rights cases and decide them, the courts do. Unless a criminal law is being broken the handicapped person's recourse would be to sue for violation of his rights.

Under what penal code violation would the police take enforcement action against such a property owner?

If he calls the FBI, they can enforce it criminally. Civil rights violations are a federal crime, as many cops have found out the hard way.

I don't see the FBI taking the case as a high priority, but it could happen. There is also the case of the governor sending in the National Guard to force it along, as has happened.

But my point was that there is clear legal precedent that the owner of the property does not have the full control over the property that you thought he did, and it is legal to pass non-discrimination laws. The laws may be civil or criminal in nature, and may prohibit discrimination for any reason. So far, we have seen laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, age, religious belief, previous servitude, and sexual orientation. This just prohibits discrimination based on weapons and LEO status.

So we agree that the police could do nothing about it other than possibly telling the person to call the FBI (good luck getting them to run code to that call ).

Odin,

The bottom line is, as I have stated MANY times, that a private property owner cannot refuse entry to an off duty peace officer simply for the fact that the off duty is carying a gun. PERIOD.


All of your arguments about "the penal code does not require the person to articulate why" blah, blah, is just inane rehtoric.