TexasCHLforum.com

You have to understand the history and the politics of the law to see why these locations are done that way. When the CHL law was first posted, there was no requirement for the notice in the law. The locations were just prohibited places for CHLs. As time went by, more legislators came around to realize that there was nothing really special about these places. The law was modified to allow these places. But they also have some very powerful lobbyists and they wanted to remain. This is especially true about hospitals.

For a time, there was a legal requirement in the Occupations Code (IIRC) that all medical facilities post a notice banning weapons. It even required the exact same wording as the 51% sign but no red 51 (which is why some hospitals have the red 51 sign still - wrong then and still is but this is how it came about). The medical lobby is still pretty strong, so the easiest way around them politically is to leave the wording in, but add a requirement for the notice. After all, it is just fair to require the notice, right?

So this way, we end up with a law that only applies if the other law applies. Where it really has a potential problem for CHL's is if they do miss the sign and get caught. A really anti-gun DA could charge them with TWO class A's, 30.06 and 46.035 violations. I think you would win on appeal based on the theory that one act can only be banned by one law - similar laws must have some fact that differs for the counts to be separate, but I am not enough of a legal expert to know for sure. I do know that if the DA charges you with two counts, it is much easier to get a plea bargain for one.

Of course, there is also the other fact that many hospitals are government owned. The 30.06 law does not apply to them, so this is the only way to keep them gun free if the hospital wants to be. Again, the politics of the medical lobby can be hard to beat. Event he legislators need doctors sometimes, so they don't want to get them too mad.

GrillKing wrote:I can't believe a LEO can stay on private property if asked to leave unless they were there for official police business. It's just that it is not criminal for them to pass the sign. It seems that w/o this legislation, passing a 'no guns' sign would be tresspassing for going to lunch, stopping by the dry cleaners or WalMart on the way home, etc. Almost no one has a problem with LEOs and I have to believe most 'no guns' signs are not intended for LEOs.

I'm missing how this is bad....

Well, GrillKing, as Charles pointed out, the only thing cops are exempt from on criminal trespass laws is the discrimination of the trespass being because of the weapon. If you come up and tell a police officer to leave your property because you don't like blue uniforms, he has to leave or take the chance on being arrested. It is well documented in case law that criminal trespass does apply to officers, even if they are on duty and answering a call. The pre-eminent case on it was a drug case where the Court of Criminal Appeals overturned a police arrest for a meth lab because the police entered a large acreage by crossing a fence line. Their being on the property was how they got the probable cause for the warrant. The court specifically noted that there is no exception in the Penal Code sections on criminal trespass for police officers. There is for firefighters and EMT's, so if the legislature wanted it to not apply to officers, it would be written that way.

It is a bad law to create special classes of people that have special privileges. This is especially true when it is giving government employees a privilege no other citizen has and overriding a private property owner's rights. The fact that no one expects signs posted for citizens to apply to police officers is just a sign that we are on the way to having a more stratified class society. That goes against my grain as an American, though, intellectually, I realize we have always had a society of castes, even if we did not take it as far as India did.


Charles,

The law I was referring to requiring the officer to take action is Article 2.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It makes no distinction for duty status on the duties required of officers. I was taught that the interpretation of this as making the cop on duty 24 hours was a workmen's comp case from San Antonio in the early to mid 80's. The officer was injured stopping a crime while off-duty and the city tried to say it was not workmen's comp since he was not being paid for the work at the time. The city lost, though there was a contributing factor of the city rules and regs having a similar clause.

But that does not excuse the law. I agree with you that the law should not allow a police officer to do anything a citizen cannot do without a court order (or the same rules with exigent circumstances).

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

Charles,

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction. This applies at all times. This is where the 24 hour on duty concept comes from (and why many officers live outside the cities they serve).

As a result of this law, there have been cases where the city has had liability applied to them for either the officer's actions or the workman's comp liability for the officer getting hurt. Probably the best example I know of off-hand for the liability is Off. Smith (IIRC?) in San Antonio a few years back. He was working off-duty for Dillard's and ended up killing a Mexican citizen in an incident on New Year's Day. Dillard's was sued for the use of force and SAPD was required to step in and assume the case and liability (which they won).

stevie_d_64 wrote:I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

Yes, it was, and could be enforced under 30.05 until recently.

Landry's Restaurant in San Antonio used to refuse to serve officer's in uniform. They thought officers in uniform brought an image of danger tot he restaurant. They even tried to get us to to stay outside when we were handling calls, but that did not go over too well.


Also, remember when Six Flags banned people with guns when CHL was first passed? They included cops that were off duty. It took Houston PD revoking all of the work permits for their officers before Six Flags would talk about it. HPD Chief took the stance that the officers were off-duty, they had to obey Six Flags rules, so they could not carry there. Since they could not carry they could not work.

Molon_labe wrote:You walk into a burgershack with a ghostbuster no gun on the door..ignoring it, yet you get outted by a massive anti-gunner manager that slapped that thing on the door and the police are called...who is more in the wrong..the manager who DOESN'T own the property or you for ignoring the false no guns sign??

Legally or morally?

Legally, neither of you is wrong. The law allows the owner, OR a person acting with the apparent authority of the owner like a manager, to post the signs or make the rules. The manager is not wrong for expressing his desire to keep guns off his property. He has not done so in a way that is legally enforceable on you, but he has expressed his wishes and done so in a legal manner. The sign is in fact legally enforceable on other legal pistol carriers (say a traveler or a military person).

You are not legally obligated to obey the non-compliant sign. It has no legal meaning to you. You are not legally wrong for entering.

Morally, you are both wrong. The manager is wrong for not expressing his desires in a proper and clear fashion that is legally enforceable. IMHO, he has a moral obligation to make things clear so others can know what he wants.

You are morally wrong for entering a store that does not want you to enter with a gun. I am assuming you saw the sign and thought it meant for you to stay out with a CHL and weapon, but that is not necessarily a fair conclusion. If the sign is not clear as to his desires, you are only wrong if you thought he was trying to apply it to you.