TexasCHLforum.com

RottenApple wrote:I had an interesting experience this morning. I was driving past the Wylie PD and noticed an officer just pulling in. So I pulled in, introduced myself, and asked if he minded if I ask him a few questions related to this subject. He didn't, and so we were off. I asked him about 2 basic scenarios.

1) CHL Holder wants into a store that has a gun buster sign, "no guns" sign, or even no sign at all. The CHL holder's firearm becomes exposed momentarily and someone calls the police. What would you do?

2) CHL holder walks into a store with a valid 30.06 sign but, for whatever reason, doesn't see it. The CHL holder's firearm becomes exposed momentarily and someone calls the police. What would you do?

His answer was the same for both situations:

First, the officer wasn't concerned abut the 30.06 sign in any way shape or form. Valid, invalid, doesn't matter. He said it really isn't an issue to most cops.

Second, the officer didn't really care if the owner/manager asked the CHL holder to leave and s/he refused. The officer just wants everyone to be able to go home safely at the end of the day. So he (the officer) would explain that the owner/manager has requested that s/he (CHL Holder) leave and the officer would escort the CHL holder off the premises.

This (and finally), the officer stated that the only time he (and, in his opinion, most other officers) would actually arrest the CHL holder is if they had a bad attitude, were acting belligerent, or being a nuisance over the whole issue instead of just leaving.

And there we have it. At least from a small town PD officer. I know it's not official, but its kinda cool nonetheless. So stay concealed, be nice, and leave if requested.

RottenApple wrote:Lots of threads lately about 30.06 signs, effective notice, etc. one thing that keeps coming up is a kind of "but I didn't see it" defense. I.E. - A business posts a valid 30.06, but its towards the rear of the inside of the store, on the front of the building away from the entrance, at some entrances but not others, etc. Regardless of the exact location, the sign is clearly visible to the public, but it doesn't jump out and smack you when you approach/enter the building.

So I'm kinda curious about this "defense". It seems to me that the mall/police/DA only has to prove that the posted location is valid. I.E. - that the sign meet all requirements, including being in a location "conspicuous to the public" (which, sadly, has no legal definition). Assuming that they do, would it then not be up to the defendant to prove that they didn't receive notice because they didn't see the sign?

Ooh. And what about a blind CHL holder? Would ANY sign be considered effective notice???

Now, I'm not interested in the "moral" or "ethical" obligation that some feel necessary to obey in regards to invalid postings. Y'all have your opinion (which i respect) and i have mine. And I suspect we aren't gonna change each others minds about that. I'm only curious about this "I didn't see it" defense.