BAD EXPERIENCE: Dallas Museum of Art

[txinvestigator]

For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

No actually, I understand it completely. You clearly don't understand how a defense to prosecution works. I suggest you read my post above.

[Arock]

For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

No actually, I understand it completely. You clearly don't understand how a defense to prosecution works. I suggest you read my post above.

Answer my question first.

[txinvestigator]

IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

Please explain this. The presumption of traveling is not needed for a Peace Officer.

What I said, and maintain, is that if you meet the 5 elements of the presumption, then you ARE traveling. If you are traveling, then 46.02 is not applicable to you.

How did I not understand?

[txinvestigator]

For you to have access to the defense, you must first have committed the crime. If you commit the crime, the police can arrest, as the defense must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Not by probable cause.

Can you clarify what must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I thought the state had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defendant to prove his innocence.

- Jim

This is TXI's problem. IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

No actually, I understand it completely. You clearly don't understand how a defense to prosecution works. I suggest you read my post above.

Answer my question first.

You didn't ask one.

[Arock]

IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

Please explain this. The presumption of traveling is not needed for a Peace Officer.

What I said, and maintain, is that if you meet the 5 elements of the presumption, then you ARE traveling. If you are traveling, then 46.02 is not applicable to you.

How did I not understand?

My recollection is it was you who took several pages of patient explanation before you finally conceeded the presumption of travelling statute worked to the benefit of the citizen.

Now answer my question per: "Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes."

[seamusTX]

So in our scenario even though you clearly engaged in conduct that meets the statutory requirement of criminal homicide, you can use the defense to prosecution based on 9.32 (deadly force in defense of a person) to be found not-guilty.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes. Thanks. As I am not a lawyer and have never been invovled in a criminal case in Texas, I have trouble with concepts like "defense" and "presumption."

On a practical level, it seems that when you clearly have a defense, you may not even be arrested. Many justified self-defense shooters are not arrested.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

"txinvestigator

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

I disagree. PC30.06e clearly states the entirety of PC30.06 does not apply to a holder of license to carry concealed handgun on public owned or leased property not already covered by PC46.03 and PC46.035.

Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes.

If you were referring to this question;

I agree with you in part, again, I ask the question few want to answer, what will you do if they do not allow you entry? Force your way in?

And there is no penalty TO THEM if they post contrary to 30.06 and DO keep you out. Therefore the law does not restrict the entity from keeping you out, it simply makes it NOT an offense under 30.06 if it is a govt owned facility.

[txinvestigator]

So in our scenario even though you clearly engaged in conduct that meets the statutory requirement of criminal homicide, you can use the defense to prosecution based on 9.32 (deadly force in defense of a person) to be found not-guilty.

I hope that makes sense.

Yes. Thanks. As I am not a lawyer and have never been invovled in a criminal case in Texas, I have trouble with concepts like "defense" and "presumption."

On a practical level, it seems that when you clearly have a defense, you may not even be arrested. Many justified self-defense shooters are not arrested.

- Jim

Absolutely. Especially where the evidence is clear.

[txinvestigator]

IIRC he also had great difficulty understanding the presumption of travelling statute as it benefits the average citizen instead of the cop.

Please explain this. The presumption of traveling is not needed for a Peace Officer.

What I said, and maintain, is that if you meet the 5 elements of the presumption, then you ARE traveling. If you are traveling, then 46.02 is not applicable to you.

How did I not understand?

My recollection is it was you who took several pages of patient explanation before you finally conceeded the presumption of travelling statute worked to the benefit of the citizen.

That was not me. I have been a proponent of this since it passed. I DID tell some that I dind't care what the Houston DA said he would do, it was clearly not a violation if you met the presumption.

Now answer my question per: "Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes."[/quote]

[Arock]

"txinvestigator

Arock, keep fighting the good fight. You said that the Sheriff has the final decision. Thats simply not the case and he needs to realize it. THE LAW has the final decision and he simply has to abide by it. Don't give up until things are set right. Good luck!

No, actually the law only says 30.06 is an exception if the place is owned or leased by the govt. No where does any law say a public entity cannot restrict concealed carry.

I disagree. PC30.06e clearly states the entirety of PC30.06 does not apply to a holder of license to carry concealed handgun on public owned or leased property not already covered by PC46.03 and PC46.035.

Please show me where it states a public entity can further restrict licensed concealed carry on the basis of these statutes.

If you were referring to this question;

I agree with you in part, again, I ask the question few want to answer, what will you do if they do not allow you entry? Force your way in?

And there is no penalty TO THEM if they post contrary to 30.06 and DO keep you out. Therefore the law does not restrict the entity from keeping you out, it simply makes it an an offense under 30.06 if it is a govt owned facility.

Thank you for admitting there is no law under which a licensed holder can be kept out of otherwise legal access to public properties.

I agree with you there is currently no law that penalizes a governmental entity for exceeding the limit of the statute.

However, that said, any prosecution of a licensed holder for attempting access to those legitimate areas exposes the governmental entity to prosecution for false arrest, official oppression, malicious prosecution etc not to mention civil damages.

I'll stand for my rights thank you even if others will not theirs.

[Arock]

[quote="txinvestigator
That was not me. I have been a proponent of this since it passed.[/quote]

My sincere apologies.

Now answer the question.

[Arock]

I want to post a public apology to TXI. I have a bad habit of coming across poorly on the internet. TXI did not deserve my responses. I PM'ed him an apology and want to do it in front of all of us as well.

You have my sincere apology.

Arock

[txinvestigator]

I want to post a public apology to TXI. I have a bad habit of coming across poorly on the internet. TXI did not deserve my responses. I PM'ed him an apology and want to do it in front of all of us as well.

You have my sincere apology.

Arock

No apology needed as I saw nothing out of line, but I accept.

I have a pretty thick skin and I actually enjoy good debate.

[nitrogen]

So basically, if I understand, it goes something like this:

"The law says that govt. owned entities cannot restrict CHL's soley based on them carrying a legally concealed weapon, but there is no penalty to them if they decide to break this law. The CHL has more to lose than the govt. entity in this case."

Have I pretty much got it right?

Sounds like something that needs to change.

[txinvestigator]

So basically, if I understand, it goes something like this:

"The law says that govt. owned entities cannot restrict CHL's soley based on them carrying a legally concealed weapon,

No, the law says YOU are exempt from 30.06 at a govt owned place. It does not say they cannot restrict. It looks like simple semantics, but if it read that they could not restrict, THEN they would be in violation if they did,

but there is no penalty to them if they decide to break this law.

There is no law for them break. To break a law there has to be a specific prohibition that you violate. In the case of the govt, there is no specific law that says they cannot post.

The CHL has more to lose than the govt. entity in this case."

Unfortunately it seems as though you are correct.