TexasCHLforum.com

TVGuy wrote:How does any of the last page about Garland ISD building have to do with open carry, which is what HB 910 is about?

Topic veered a little comparing HB308 to HB910.

txglock21 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

Winchster wrote:The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Why do you think it (the building) is "improperly posted"? I live and work in Garland and have been there many times. I can assure you it is properly posted if that's proper wording. The building is owned and operated by GISD. I can't say for sure about the actual ground it is on. I think the land is owned by the City of Garland, but not 100% positive on that. 30.06 is posted on every public enterance and also has had metal detectors every time I've been there. The parking lot is not posted and AFAIK you can walk around and right up to the front door with your CHL and weapon as long as you don't walk through the door with it. You are correct in that it is down the street from Naaman Forest HS, but the two properties are not divided by anything.

I think the point is that a government owned building is not supposed to be posted at all, with the few exceptions listed in the statues. It may be school owned, but it's not a school.

I'm not arguing with either one of you. You both may be right. All I'm saying is, it is and has been posted since it was built and I for one am not going to lose my CHL to prove a point.

I don't want to quibble, but rather point out I think the language used was deliberate.

First of all, I agree with you completely about not carrying past a post 30.06. That's why I think pending legislation that makes knowingly posting a 30.06 illegal. I think too many "we know best" government folks post signs that they suspect may be improper (or in some cases, know it to be so) because it suits what they want.

But I digress. I think the term "improperly posted" was used deliberately, as opposed to "not properly posted". "Not properly posted" would (I'm guessing) mean that someone forgot to post at one of the doors, or used old wording instead of the current. "Improperly posted" (again, my guess) meaning that they deliberately posted something when they weren't supposed to.

It's probably worth noting that had the good police and guards not stopped these guys, every person that heeded those signs, whether improper or not, would have been sitting ducks.

txglock21 wrote:

Winchster wrote:The building in question isn't on school grounds, it's nearby. However, it is improperly posted 30.06 anyway.

Why do you think it (the building) is "improperly posted"? I live and work in Garland and have been there many times. I can assure you it is properly posted if that's proper wording. The building is owned and operated by GISD. I can't say for sure about the actual ground it is on. I think the land is owned by the City of Garland, but not 100% positive on that. 30.06 is posted on every public enterance and also has had metal detectors every time I've been there. The parking lot is not posted and AFAIK you can walk around and right up to the front door with your CHL and weapon as long as you don't walk through the door with it. You are correct in that it is down the street from Naaman Forest HS, but the two properties are not divided by anything.

I think the point is that a government owned building is not supposed to be posted at all, with the few exceptions listed in the statues. It may be school owned, but it's not a school.

mr1337 wrote:

Maxwell wrote:

mr1337 wrote:
Don't forget running the serial of the gun and emptying the chamber and magazine, dumping the rounds on the sidewalk before giving it back to you, for "officer safety."

Don't you think that's a little bit of a conspiracy theorist point of view? I mean really, how many people do you know, or anyone for that matter, that have ever had an officer "dumping rounds on the sidewalk..."...?

It's not unheard of.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@3 min 28 secs through 4 min 25 secs

Maybe the guy should have waited a few minutes, and then called in that some crazy man dumped bullets all over the ground, and drove off and left them ...

TexasCajun wrote:

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

The Dutton amendment probably would have been a non-issue for the Senate. But Stickland decided to run his mouth, so it might very well be a bill killer now.

I think the attention the amendment is getting has more to do with Bud Kennedy misrepresenting what the amendment means. He used Strickland's views, but he would have run with his misrepresentation anyway, that's his MO.

Years ago, Texas had just passed a new law making it legal to not wear a motorcycle helmet. I typically wore one (and still typically do), but late one night I was leaving the Dallas Convention Center after working a computer networking gig, and left my helmet in the booth. I remembered it when I got to my bike, but the door had locked behind me and I couldn't get back in. I then remembered the new law, and went ahead and rode home.

A few blocks from my house (in my own town) around midnight, I got stopped. I looked down to see if I was speeding (not an unheard of act for me) and saw that I wasn't, so I couldn't figure out why I was being stopped. I got out my driver's license and proof of insurance, so had them ready when he asked. He then asked for proof of health insurance (I showed him my group card). Then I asked him why I had been stopped. He said to ensure I met the requirements to ride without a helmet.

It bothered me. I didn't feel it was right that a policeman should be able to stop someone who was following the law, just to see if they might not be. I called the police chief the next morning, and complained. He assured me it would be addressed, and a week later a desk sergent called me and said that it had been addressed during roll call a number of times, that officers were told not to stop motorcycle riders solely to check on no-helmet requirements.

A few years later (2009), there were several new amendments passed concerning Texas helmet laws, and one of them specifically was one that "Prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining a person who is the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed the motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a health insurance plan."

Apparently, there were enough complaints of actions similar to what I experienced (without follow up by reasonable police departments) that someone felt the amendment was needed. It was a good amendment. This is a good amendment. In my opinion, only oppressive leaning police departments would be against such an amendment.

Policemen should not be permitted to use following the letter of the law as probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone is breaking the law. It is neither.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Wes wrote:I don't think he is necessarily saying a chl holder. Any crime that is discovered because a person was stopped for open carrying, even open carrying itself, could be tossed out because the cop did not have cause to stop the person. CHL aside. Imagine a murder suspect who was picked up just for properly openly carrying and the arrest and murder weapon is tossed out in court because the evidence was illegally obtained. Thus a murderer might go free. DA most certainly won't be happy. Now, I'm no lawyer but I beleive this to be what he is saying, and honestly it makes sense to me.

If it is a murder suspect, they already have probable cause to stop you - you match the description of a person of interest.

The ONLY thing this amendment does is prevent harassment by the police of people open carrying a handgun. If you are stopped and asked to identify, they will need to have probable cause other than the fact that you are carrying a handgun openly. If they state they have probable cause, regardless of how flimsy it seems, record the encounter, comply after notifying them of the law and go about your business. It will be sorted out VERY quickly if you do have a CHL and aren't confrontational. If you feel your rights have been violated, speak with the appropriate department, file an FOIA request for the stop including any 911 calls pertaining to it and build a case that it was unjustified. When you have a solid case, take the officer and the department to court.

Frankly I don't think it will be a big deal. Open carry will require some amount of education of the public as well as training of the 911 dispatchers to ask questions and calm down panicked hoplophobes, but I anticipate it will be worked out relatively quickly. It may take a bit more time in urban areas with populations over 1,000,000 uh, I mean 750,000 no wait, 175,000.

I hope you don't think I'm saying this is a bad amendment, or that I'm even against it. Neither is the case. I'm all for it. My little imagined scenario above is just my personal thoughts on why I don't anticipate some policemen abusing the "probable cause" scenario.

In other words, I don't think cops are going to be making up excuses to harass folks.

G.A. Heath wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

This. The only problem with the amendment - no teeth.
Just like how unenforceable signs being posted by cities - previously no punishment listed if the law is broken, so municipalities posted without repercussion.

I suspect the first time some DA finds a real crime thrown out because the initial stop was initiated because of OC but had no real reason for being stopped, thus the whole search was thrown out; it will suddenly find some teeth.

What are the odds that some real crime will be thrown out? CHLs, soon HLs??, are one of the most (if not the most) law abiding segment of the population we have documentation for.

I think you missed my point. Yes, CHLs are one the most law abiding segment. But, it's not the CHL guy that I'm talking about.

Here's my (imagined) scenario. Bad guy with a gun is open carrying, counting on not being hassled. A cop just "has a feeling", and asks to see his CHL. He doesn't have one, so the cop does a full pat down, and finds crack. He makes his arrest. A sharp lawyer claims the initial stop was without legitimate probable cause, and all of the evidence gets tossed.

locke_n_load wrote:

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

This. The only problem with the amendment - no teeth.
Just like how unenforceable signs being posted by cities - previously no punishment listed if the law is broken, so municipalities posted without repercussion.

I suspect the first time some DA finds a real crime thrown out because the initial stop was initiated because of OC but had no real reason for being stopped, thus the whole search was thrown out; it will suddenly find some teeth.