TexasCHLforum.com

I don't think the officer forcing you to disarm would be seen by the courts as infringing on your 2A rights. If you could prove there was a threat to your safety there that he did not allow you to protect yourself from, it might be. Just as barring your entry to the property improperly might be seen as violating your 1A rights to freedom of association or freedom of expression, but I am not sure the courts would see it that way.

But it is clear that an arrest where you did not violate the law is a violation of your civil rights. The only question is if the law is clear and settled in that area. SCOTUS has generally said that officers have immunity for making an arrest in the gray areas that is later shown to be wrong. When you think about it, this is a reasonable attitude that lets a cop work when the laws are not as clear as we would like. It does allow for some abuse (not intentional abuse though, that would not hold up that far) and there might be a better way to do it, but I am not sure what it would be.

Pyrat wrote:Charles, I was thinking of the recent gun show in Allen and as Jamisjocky has stated, is not a LEO actually in violation of the law by enforcing no carry on these non-privately owned properties, and would this not mean the officer is not in the lawful execution of his/her duties? If this were the case, would a class action suit, basically stopping the illegal action under cover of authority by officers not be justifiable?

I don't think the officer is in violation of the law by asking you to check the guns and zip tie them. There is no law forbidding the officer from stopping you and asking you to comply with the promoter's wishes. If you pointed out the law to him and he insisted on it, he might be but I am still not sure. To me, the only way I would be confident the officer was violating the law would be if he arrested someone for violating 30.06 on government owned property. Then he could be charged with violating their civil rights under color of law.

And given the lack of any case law on the subject, I could not even be positive even then. The officer will have some immunity until the point is settled law. I agree that I read the statute as pretty settled law, but that is my opinion and not the court's. Obviously we still have some attorneys out there that think otherwise than what I do.