BAD EXPERIENCE: Dallas Museum of Art

[Arock]

No, the law says YOU are exempt from 30.06 at a govt owned place. It does not say they cannot restrict.

Again, let me ask the question "where is the statute that gives them (govt entity) the ability to restrict?"

Absent that they have no authority. Yes?

[nitrogen]

Ah-HA!

It finally penetrates my skull.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Arock]

A govt entity cannot go around barring people from places and activities just because they feel like it. There has to be a reason and a statute to back it up.

I would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.

[txinvestigator]

A govt entity cannot go around barring people from places and activities just because they feel like it. There has to be a reason and a statute to back it up.

I would appreciate a cite to the applicable statute.

Actually it is the other way around. Unless statutorily prohibited from barring people, they can.

Laws restrict things, and are not written to allow things, generally. So unless the law proscribes conduct, it is allowed.


It is like me saying "show me the law that says you can walk down the street without carrying government issued ID." There is no law to show, as it does not exist. However, just because the law does not state you CAN do that, does not mean you cannot. In fact, by NOT proscribing that, you can legally walk down the street with no government issued ID.

Show me the law that says you CAN carry a rifle in your vehicle.

[Arock]

Thank you for your reply. It is what I anticipated.

With your thought in mind, PC30.06e specifically prohibits governmental entities from enforcing the remainder of 30.06 for license holders.

And PC30.05 in non-applicable.

So what statute is going to be used to prosecute a CHL carrying in an otherwise legal area?

[txinvestigator]

Thank you for your reply. It is what I anticipated.

With your thought in mind, PC30.06e specifically prohibits governmental entities from enforcing the remainder of 30.06 for license holders.

And PC30.05 in non-applicable.

So what statute is going to be used to prosecute a CHL carrying in an otherwise legal area?

In reverse; 30.05 is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicable.

In all probability the employees would first just tell you that you cannot enter with the gun. If you pressed the issue they would tell you to leave completely. If you refused, in all likelyhood they would arrest you for 30.05 at that point.

It would be interesting to see how that played out; however, I am not interested enought to discover first hand.

[Arock]

And PC30.05f reads:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that"
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

The DA's office in our county understands this to mean licensed CHL carry is allowed. They will not file charges based on your assertion. It would surprise me if any DA who reads tha statute would proceed differently.

That doesn't prevent a cop from trying to invent cop-law on the spot but that won't fly with the professionals.

[KBCraig]

I don't know why so many of these things are defenses to prosecution or presumptions. They leave the citizen subject to a lot of hassle and expense.

Your second sentence answers the first.

Making things defenses or presumptions, which still leave the citizen subject to arrest, is part of the philosophy of, "He needed arrestin', yer honor!" In other words, "I didn't catch him doing anything wrong, exactly, but if I can arrest him anyway and shake this tree hard enough, I know some nuts are gonna fall."

Selective enforcement is one of the more offensive parts of the law, and our laws are designed for, and beg for, enforcement to be selective.

Kevin

Again, not true at all. The legislators wrote the law, not the cops.

I didn't say nor imply that the cops write the law. I said that it is written deliberately to make it easy to selectively enforce.

Please explain how that is "not true at all".

Selective enforcement has nothing to do with it. If an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, then he arrests.

Selective enforcement has everything to do with it. Any time that an officer could arrest, but doesn't, he's engaging in selective enforcement. And thank goodness that they do, because the jails wouldn't hold all of the "technical" violators.

Any time a law offers an exemption other than "does not apply", then it allows for an arrest and all the subsequent hassle, even if no charges are filed, and even if it's 100% certaint that a stated "defense to prosecution" would be successful.

So again, tell me how it's "not true at all" that the laws allow for selective enforcement.

Kevin

[txinvestigator]

Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

Selective enforcement is where pre-selected sets of criteria are laid out and enforcement is taken only on that pre-selected criteria.

Discretion is where an officer uses the totality of the circumstances when deciding to make an arrest.

[txinvestigator]

And PC30.05f reads:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that"
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

The DA's office in our county understands this to mean licensed CHL carry is allowed. They will not file charges based on your assertion. It would surprise me if any DA who reads tha statute would proceed differently.

That doesn't prevent a cop from trying to invent cop-law on the spot but that won't fly with the professionals.

I understand. Again, there have been assertions here that SOME govt owned offices are excluding CHL by virtue of wanding, searching or metal detecting. When that occurs, right or wrong, the CHL holder has no recourse at that time but to comply.

I agree it is wrong; however, I am not willing to get arrested over this point.

[wrt45]

How does this fit into the discussion:

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

I see where the legislature has the authority to regulate the wearing of arms, but I don't see where the state's constitution grants any authority to the county commisssioners, or the city council, or a government museum board, etc. to take such action.

[KBCraig]

Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

My mistake. I didn't realize we were restricted to the "TXI Dictionary".

[kauboy]

Even though the law does not offer a punishment for a govt entitiy that restricts, can't the local DA pressure the issue to be changed? I don't know what he could use to press it except maybe negative advertising againts the current Sheriff in the next election.

[txinvestigator]

Discretion is NOT selective enforcement.

My mistake. I didn't realize we were restricted to the "TXI Dictionary".

Don't pour hateraid because I'm right.

[casselthief]

Don't pour hateraid because I'm right.

that's funny.
and yes, you are.