Tell me where I was in the wrong...

[Shinesintx]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

I have only been around 8-9 months. In that short of time, I have come to learn (very early in joining) that ONLY a 30.06 is valid. In my original post, I stated that I ONLY looked for the 30.06 signage. That is why the thread title is "Tell me where I was wrong". I did not necessarily think that I was wrong, just wanted to make sure.

It does pizz me off to no that someone in the state would have officer teaching that all signs are valid. It sounds very Obamaesque.

[wgoforth]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

I have only been around 8-9 months. In that short of time, I have come to learn (very early in joining) that ONLY a 30.06 is valid. In my original post, I stated that I ONLY looked for the 30.06 signage. That is why the thread title is "Tell me where I was wrong". I did not necessarily think that I was wrong, just wanted to make sure.

It does pizz me off to no that someone in the state would have officer teaching that all signs are valid. It sounds very Obamaesque.

Just remember it was OfficerS... several of them. The ones in charge of the CHL Instructor program, then being dissiminated to the instructors. Also, one said that ANY employee at a business can give you verbal notice, doesn't have to be anyone with authority.

[MasterOfNone]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

I have only been around 8-9 months. In that short of time, I have come to learn (very early in joining) that ONLY a 30.06 is valid. In my original post, I stated that I ONLY looked for the 30.06 signage. That is why the thread title is "Tell me where I was wrong". I did not necessarily think that I was wrong, just wanted to make sure.

It does pizz me off to no that someone in the state would have officer teaching that all signs are valid. It sounds very Obamaesque.

Just remember it was OfficerS... several of them. The ones in charge of the CHL Instructor program, then being dissiminated to the instructors. Also, one said that ANY employee at a business can give you verbal notice, doesn't have to be anyone with authority.

I believe the teaching that any anti-gun sign is enforceable is worthy of a letter to DPS, with the AG included if you need to write a second letter.
As for employees giving notice, I agree with the instruction that you found incorrect. An employee is a representative of the business, and you have no way of knowing what authority the owner, through management, has given that employee.

[wgoforth]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

I have only been around 8-9 months. In that short of time, I have come to learn (very early in joining) that ONLY a 30.06 is valid. In my original post, I stated that I ONLY looked for the 30.06 signage. That is why the thread title is "Tell me where I was wrong". I did not necessarily think that I was wrong, just wanted to make sure.

It does pizz me off to no that someone in the state would have officer teaching that all signs are valid. It sounds very Obamaesque.

Just remember it was OfficerS... several of them. The ones in charge of the CHL Instructor program, then being dissiminated to the instructors. Also, one said that ANY employee at a business can give you verbal notice, doesn't have to be anyone with authority.

I believe the teaching that any anti-gun sign is enforceable is worthy of a letter to DPS, with the AG included if you need to write a second letter.
As for employees giving notice, I agree with the instruction that you found incorrect. An employee is a representative of the business, and you have no way of knowing what authority the owner, through management, has given that employee.

So a sack boy can tell me not to carry? I would have to KNOW they had that authority or be told by management. 30.05 says it has to be someone with authority or apparent authority. For all I know the sack boy has heard the boss tell EMPLOYEES not to bring guns to work as company policy. I didn't clearly state the instructors comment. He stated that ANY employee can tell you. When he was asked "wouldn't it have to be someone with authority?" he replied ANY employee. That is not what 30.05 states.

[wgoforth]

I do want to apologize here... I hijacked this thread without even realizing it. I had just returned today from DPS training for the week and made a list of things not in accord with our common understanding of CHL law. I think it would be better if I created a separate thread for this.

[Shinesintx]

I do want to apologize here... I hijacked this thread without even realizing it. I had just returned today from DPS training for the week and made a list of things not in accord with our common understanding of CHL law. I think it would be better if I created a separate thread for this.

Its my thread so I have the AUTHORITY

...to inform you that you are MORE than welcome to highjack the thread. Having said that, I think the info you have is WORTHY of a new thread so that more people will see it and get involved.

[pcgizzmo]

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.

And I agree with you 100%, I even asked about the old Vernon Statutes that many business cite, asking how can you violate a law that doesn't exist? Their canned response was "You knew the intent." I was please with most of the class, and some great DPS folks taught it...but it is like taxes. CONGRESS (not IRS) writes the tax laws. IRS only enforces it and they are not always right. Similarly, Legislature writes CHL law and DPS enforces and are not always right. There were several smaller issues that were matters of interpretation that came along I don't think most of us would agree with (ie, "printing.") but the signage was the most disturbing to me. Oh, also that you could not turn men away from a Woman's CHL class or one designed just for your congregation as it would be against federal discrimination laws.

I've been talking about this for a while here but people don't always want to hear it. If you walk past a improperly formatted 30.06 sign and get the law called on you your probably going to jail. Your probably going to be told that you knew the intent. You might be in deep doo doo. Intent does have to do with it.

As far as a gun buster sign I can't speak for it but I get the impression as it seems you did in your class that you might get a ride if your caught. What happens after that I don't know. Hopefully you would get off because it wasn't a 30.06.

[wgoforth]

Wow...that is more than disturbing. The instructer of that class should be reported for teaching improper training. I am surprised that they will just let any old goof ball teach CHL classes.

Gosh... I am just busted open by something this disturbing. I have to ask you. Did this instructer say exactly how he knew the intentions of someone posting a gun buster sign? I assume they(the business owner) are telling criminals that armed robbery is not allowed at their place of business. There could be many reasons a business posts a gun buster sign that have nothing to do with the desire to restrict a CHL holder.

And I agree with you 100%, I even asked about the old Vernon Statutes that many business cite, asking how can you violate a law that doesn't exist? Their canned response was "You knew the intent." I was please with most of the class, and some great DPS folks taught it...but it is like taxes. CONGRESS (not IRS) writes the tax laws. IRS only enforces it and they are not always right. Similarly, Legislature writes CHL law and DPS enforces and are not always right. There were several smaller issues that were matters of interpretation that came along I don't think most of us would agree with (ie, "printing.") but the signage was the most disturbing to me. Oh, also that you could not turn men away from a Woman's CHL class or one designed just for your congregation as it would be against federal discrimination laws.

I do not know anyone other way to interpret "REQUIRES". "In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:" When they say "You KNEW the intent"....no, I'm not a mind reader, I didn't. For all I knew they wanted to keep the sheeple and insurance happy while giving us a wink and a nod. The no gun sign/gunbsuter? It could just as easily mean it applies to unlicensed since it says nothing. Like most things...you pays yer monies and you takes your chances.... But the fact remains that no one can find a single CHL holder that has been successfully prosecuted for carrying past an invalid sign.

[speedsix]

...we have our hoops that we gotta jump through to do it lawfully...they have theirs...if we miss one...it's our bad...if they miss one, it's theirs...we just have to have backbone enough to see to it that they don't miss one and get away with it...(also known as some things are worth fighting for)...

[03Lightningrocks]

...so that the comment that the OP should have been taught this (only 30.06 is valid) was not necessarily the case. He may NOT have been taught such.

If the OP has been hanging around this forum as long as you and I have, it would be safe to assume the OP has been told this more than 465,768,000,001 times.

I am going to leave it alone now but please don't pass improper laws along to your students. It is hard enough complying with CHL laws without us making up laws that don't exist.

I have only been around 8-9 months. In that short of time, I have come to learn (very early in joining) that ONLY a 30.06 is valid. In my original post, I stated that I ONLY looked for the 30.06 signage. That is why the thread title is "Tell me where I was wrong". I did not necessarily think that I was wrong, just wanted to make sure.

It does pizz me off to no that someone in the state would have officer teaching that all signs are valid. It sounds very Obamaesque.

LOL... by OP... I was talking about the OP I had responded to. Sorry about that...

[03Lightningrocks]

Just remember it was OfficerS... several of them. The ones in charge of the CHL Instructor program, then being dissiminated to the instructors. Also, one said that ANY employee at a business can give you verbal notice, doesn't have to be anyone with authority.

"Birds of a feather...." There could be ten of them and if all of them are ignorant together... it means nothing. One of them is the "ring leader" and the others are swinging off that ones (boot heel ). To get a proper consensus, one would have to poll officers from all over Texas. If all of them proved to be ignorant, the people of the great state of Texas need to immediately start an education program.

I remember one of your first posts in this forum was about a "mis-informed" officer that said a gun buster type sign in the mall was enough to get you arrested. Is this the same clown, or one of his running buddies?

Based on your past posts, Brownwood Texas must be an Obama stronghold. I am amazed at how much anti gun sentiment comes from such a small area. Especially an area that derives much of it's revenue from hunters.

[03Lightningrocks]

I have to say something at this point that seems to escape some of us. CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED!!! If your properely concealing your weapon, you won't have to worry about the technicalities of the sign! If you show your weapon it should be as your shooting the bad guy! At this point.... do you really care if your going to be in trouble for carrying past some sign??? We are only suppose to use our weapons defending our lives. I would rather be alive and fighting a legal situation than dead.


In an earlier post I said I was going to leave it alone... I guess I lied. Now I am done.

[wgoforth]

Just remember it was OfficerS... several of them. The ones in charge of the CHL Instructor program, then being dissiminated to the instructors. Also, one said that ANY employee at a business can give you verbal notice, doesn't have to be anyone with authority.

"Birds of a feather...." There could be ten of them and if all of them are ignorant together... it means nothing. One of them is the "ring leader" and the others are swinging off that ones (boot heel ). To get a proper consensus, one would have to poll officers from all over Texas. If all of them proved to be ignorant, the people of the great state of Texas need to immediately start an education program.

I remember one of your first posts in this forum was about a "mis-informed" officer that said a gun buster type sign in the mall was enough to get you arrested. Is this the same clown, or one of his running buddies?

Based on your past posts, Brownwood Texas must be an Obama stronghold. I am amazed at how much anti gun sentiment comes from such a small area. Especially an area that derives much of it's revenue from hunters.

I'm still not sure I am getting across what I am alluding to here. This issue this past week was the CHL Instructor training done by the DPS in Austin. Nothing to do with Brownwood or local authorities, these are the ones in charge of the CHL program for the entire state. You are ccorrect about the issue with the local DPS, however, he seems to have been saying the same thing the state DPS teaches at the Austin program. I am not as concerned about a local officer as I am that this is the training for every CHL instructor for the entire state.... Houston to El Paso.

[wgoforth]

I have to say something at this point that seems to escape some of us. CONCEALED MEANS CONCEALED!!! If your properely concealing your weapon, you won't have to worry about the technicalities of the sign! If you show your weapon it should be as your shooting the bad guy! At this point.... do you really care if your going to be in trouble for carrying past some sign??? We are only suppose to use our weapons defending our lives. I would rather be alive and fighting a legal situation than dead.


In an earlier post I said I was going to leave it alone... I guess I lied. Now I am done.

Well, the OP told us to go for it, so it's kewl!

I realize concealed is concealed. That isn't my current concern. Mine is about what I as a CHL instructor have been told that I am to teach.

[03Lightningrocks]

I'm still not sure I am getting across what I am alluding to here. This issue this past week was the CHL Instructor training done by the DPS in Austin. Nothing to do with Brownwood or local authorities, these are the ones in charge of the CHL program for the entire state. You are ccorrect about the issue with the local DPS, however, he seems to have been saying the same thing the state DPS teaches at the Austin program. I am not as concerned about a local officer as I am that this is the training for every CHL instructor for the entire state.... Houston to El Paso.

Your correct... I was not getting it. I was not aware that this coarse was being taught in Austin. That is disturbing. That is where we get our CHL from!!! Those folks should know better. Something needs to be done to stop that garbage!!!! They are in affect, invalidating the whole reason for requiring a 30.06 sign. I wish I knew how to stir up a stink on this. I would love to read what Mr. Cotton has to post about all this.

Wow!!! That is scary!!!! Thanks for the clarification... I was thinking it was some local situation. Not that the very department responsible for managing CHL's had changed the laws.