TexasCHLforum.com

ralewis wrote: How is the BLUE Unlicensed Possession sign any more clear than the stature where it says 30.06 doesn't apply to publicly owned property?

This is my opinion - and it'd come down to the opinion of 12 people or one judge:

The blue sign says "unlicensed possession" - clearly, if you're carrying a license, that's licensed possession. I'd expect anyone with a high school education to be able to figure that out.
The 30.06 sign does not include any verbiage that indicates it doesn't apply if presented at a city owned building. That particular exclusionary verbiage is found in the penal code. We don't expect "most people" to have that knowledge. We can argue about if LEOs "should" have that knowledge, but that's not the qualified immunity bar.

The "most people" bar is what is used to determine qualified immunity. Most people don't know that 30.06 is invalid on city owned buildings (some exceptions, of course). I play "real nice" with those circumstances - IE, I don't argue, because I believe that a LEO gets a pass if he arrests in that circumstance. It's also fairly well documented that PDs have policies to ignore the law and enforce anyway. That's just reality. I'm always curious, curious enough to ask, but I record it. It can expose bad policy - which may be accidental or intentional.

ralewis wrote: I do understand what you are saying though, and it frustrates me that all of us here who debate these things and are diligent about following the law yet still are concerned about an individual LEO or agency having a policy/bias.

It frustrates me too, but it teaches me a lot about what to look for in good legislation. Right now there is nothing we can do about 30.06 being posted on city owned buildings. Sometimes this works to our advantage - right now there is nothing a LEO can do if we're carrying, get pulled over, and don't provide a CHL.. It's a punshmentless crime...

Again - read through some of Chas' proposed legislation.. I know he's proposed something recently that would allow citizens to file civil action against the city for posting those signs. That goes into law, they won't be able to remove those signs fast enough.

ralewis wrote:Oh, I agree there can be bad cops who decide what is legal and what's not based on ignorance, bias, or ideology. But that can be said of anything. If a LEO was in a 7-11 in front of the "unlicensed" BLUE sign but decided that it meant that you couldn't carry there, I suppose he can arrest you. At some point this is a state/country of laws. I'm content and convinced that the sign is unenforceable, and I'd be very motivated to sue/embarrass a LEO who decides to make up laws. By your logic you shouldn't carry anywhere because a LEO somewhere might just decide he doesn't like it and arrest you.

First, I'm unwilling to call these people "bad cops". Often they're following the rules of their department and/or supervisor. They're trying to keep their jobs.

The example that you provide is a bit more black and white. That sign says "unlicensed possession" - it's pretty clear what that means and I'd assert that making a false arrest based on it probably isn't covered by qualified immunity. That is, knowing that the law doesn't apply to someone with a license is something that a regular person should probably know. Like you, I'd almost welcome that arrest because it's so bad that it would come with consequences - both disciplinary and likely civil damages.

The key here is that I personally believe that qualified immunity applies in the 30.06 case of a city owned building.. There's very little downside to arresting in that circumstance. I'd be careful.

And let me be clear, I've asked LEOs about these unenforceable signs. I have gotten answers like "I'm not going to make illegal arrest". The real problem here is not the LEOs, but the guys that are putting LEOs in a position where they have to decide between a departmental policy and the law.

ralewis wrote: So what you are saying is Law Enforcement can make up their own laws or contradict an existing law? Below is paragraph (e) from the 30.06 statue. Seems pretty clear that it's not enforceable.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/ ... pOfmA.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm saying a few things:
1) LEOs often have a very tough job. They may choose to enforce policies of higher ups, even if that flies in the face of the law. Look back at the conflicts related to segregation if you want some crystal clear examples.
2) LEOs have an "out" if they arrest (for whatever reason) and then turn out to be wrong about the law. That out is called "qualified immunity". Because the 30.06 law has a lot of "fine print" - my guess not-a-lawyer guess is that qualified immunity applies. I don't think you'll get an officer to testify that he knew the law and arrested anyway. The only other possible disciplinary thing that can happen is departmental and we've got circumstances where LEOs are enforcing departmental policy - they won't be disciplined.

Right now there is really nothing we can do invalid 30.06 signs are posted. Look for legislation that changes it.. Or actively support legislation that could change it.

I'll nit-pick. A 30.06 on a city owned building is enforceable. If you want to know the policy of the PD on enforcing that particular posting, feel free to inquire directly with the PD. I've done it before. I'd recommend that you inquire in an unarmed manner and it might be worth recording (Texas is a single party state).

A 30.06 on a city owned building can be enforced.. And historically *some* PDs have indicated a willingness to enforce. Some have indicated that they would not enforce. If you're subject to enforcement, the law should protect you from successful prosecution. There is zero protection from enforcement.

IMHO - there is very little downside to a PD that chooses to enforce. The fine print in the current law that excludes 30.06 from allowable enforcement locations is just that.. fine print - and it's not going to be "commonly known" - as such, officers are likely indemnified if they claim that they don't know the law.

Charles has some draft legislation that might make it more risky for jurisdictions to post invalid signs and I think it'd go a long way to make this problem go away.