You make some good points and I understand your point of view, but I'll add my input...admittedly unsolicited.jimlongley wrote:sjfcontrol wrote:I think what you're missing, is that it's not the "authorities at Love Field", or "AMC Theaters" that will be prosecuting you. Criminal offenses are prosecuted by the District Attorneys. Presumably, they know the laws, and know that in order to prosecute for violation of PC 30.06 "Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun", the premises must be posted by a sign with specific parameters. (Or other valid notice must be given as specified in section 30.06.) If you walk past a non-compliant sign, are you risking possible arrest? Perhaps, if the officer is not properly trained on the current requirements, but the DAs certainly would not attempt to prosecute if the proper signage (or other notice) were not in place. All they'd do is reduce their conviction rates.jimlongley wrote:
Nope, don't reckon, I am convinced that if I were discovered to be carrying in one of those places with non-compliant signage, that the result could range all the way up to a LV Costco scenario, and I do not want to place myself in that sort of danger. Let them go ahead and show their true colors and post the big ugly sign, and was the intention of the legislation establishing it, or not post the big ugly sign, two choices, no more; "well they only mean that for the non-chls" or "They only put that sign up to satisfy the anti-gun nuts, and they secretly want the CHLs to be there" And surely not ruining it for anyone. Like the non-compliant signage at Love Field, it's not a "wink wink nudge nudge" sign, I know that the "authorities" at Love intend to prosecute, or attempt to, despite the deficiencies of their signage, I have spoken to them about it, and I see no reason to expect that AMC Theaters would probably not prosecute me, so I just choose not to give them my money, and I let them know why.
It seems to me that there a a lot of people who are afraid of doing things that are not illegal.
I'm not necessarily a terminology stickler either, when the meaning is clear. But "The City of Dallas" (aka Love Field) or AMC would be reporting a (non) criminal violation, not bringing a charge. IIRC the owner does the reporting, Police (maybe) do the arresting, and the County Prosecutor does the charging.OK, maybe I truncated the terminology a bit, but the result is the same, it would be Love Field or AMC who would be bringing the charges, which still loosely fits under "prosecute."
Good information as such, however I believe you've mentioned that this was a few years ago. If pre-2003 then their policy probably didn't take into account the explicit "defense" to 30.05 now provided to CHL's. Even then, I doubt a prosecution would have been successful, but now it's in "black and white, as is the exception for government owned property provided in 30.06.I was a TSA agent at Love Field when I had these discussions, under the guise of understanding what "WE" should do if we discovered someone carrying despite the "30.05" signage in some locations around the airport. Airport police, up to command level, and airport administrators, informed us that they would arrest and had assurances that the DA would prosecute, despite the signage being non-compliant, we had training meetings on the subject, partly due to the change in the law at that time. You can say it is certain that they would not prosecute, but unless you are the DA, it is also still only your opinion. Hark back to the Harris County DA when he was saying that despite MPA, he still intended to prosecute anyone who was caught with what he deemed as an illegal handgun, concealed without benefit of a CHL, and tell me about DAs conforming to the law.
Secondly, your discussions don't necessarily constitute a conscious/official policy by the City of Dallas or the Dallas County prosecutors. I have no doubt that they told you what they thought they would do, but since the issue hasn't resulted in an arrest, we really don't know if they were bluffing.
Fair enough. However, see above.Individual LEOs at Love also said that if they discovered the "violation" in a circumstance that they had some discretion in, they would probably not arrest because the signage was recognizably bogus, but that the command structure, and thus their jobs, said to arrest.
Interesting, in light of the OP, which pointed out the success of Aggiedad in getting non-compliant signage removed and creating a truly CHL friendly environment, that so many have come in with their opinions that any attempt to approach the posters of such signs is "ruining it" for those same persons by making the attempt to remove a blight from the CHL landscape.
This is fine for approaching private businesses and your success in getting non-compliant signs removed adds an additional level of certainty for people who are concerned with such.Once again, I have been successful in contacting such signage posters twice over several years, and none of my efforts have resulted in the big ugly sign replacing a non-compliant one, and the smattering of replies that I have received saying they had no intention to change despite being quoted the law, have been put on notice that their signage is non-compliant and I expect to name them in the civil suit should they discover that I am carrying under my CHL because they now know the signs are wrong.
Have any of the rest of you had a similar level of success in your efforts? Has all of that self-satisfied going past non-compliant signs ever resulted in one being removed? Or do you just keep on smugly going by and saying to yourselves "I have a gun, and they don't know it, and I got away with it."?
Technically no "case law" since that is only made at the appellate level, but there is the Bedford nurses aid who had charges dropped by DA because the "notice" was incorrect per the law.There is no case law, there is no Attorney General opinion about passing non-complian signs, and even the "little white booklet" is mum on the subject, so your feeling of invincibility relating to passing non-compliant signage is still nothing more than your opinion, unless and until you get case law in the books, you get the Attorney General to break his silence on it, or you get the wording of the law changed. Nothing more than opinion, and as worthless as you hold mine to be.
I don't know what you would "get the wording changed to", especially in the case of government property. With the exception of public meetings, 30.06 just doesn't apply to government property...period.
Unless they're frisking people, why would they stop me? I did the same thing at Dallas Love recently, but nobody stopped me so I didn't make a point to go up to the cop and say... "I'm carry a handgun with a CHL". Similar situation was CHL carry at the Texas State Fair. Someone finally had the time and inclination to prove to the City that they couldn't prohibit it, so now people are admitted without a big hassle. You could eventually get this done at a govt venue gun show, but very few people are willing to go through the trouble just to prove to the Texas CHL Forum that they're right. We'll just have to wait until someone gets arrested for it.But here's a constructive suggestion, something that you can do to prove your point easily. The next time you go to a gun show at a government owned building and see that big ugly sign out front, just go ahead and walk right by, you already know that it doesn't mean anything, and be sure to let us know the result. And also let us know how you make out when they stop you and you tell them their sign is non-compliant and therefore actually "CHL friendly."
You are correct that we're dealing with opinions here and you know mine. I understand, but disagree with yours. I have previously posted the wording of the law, and some examples of its application in criminal cases...Bedford Nurse's Aid, Handog... I believe both support my opinion of 46.02, 46.035, 30.05 and 30.06. I doubt we're going to get the AG to issue an opinion saying, in effect, driving 55 in a 55 zone is legal, so I guess I agree that we will all behave in the manner that we believe is supported by our opinions.Meantime I will continue to err on the side of my opinion until one of you manages to come up with a convincing counter opinion, or some case law, or an AG opinion (still only really opinion) or get the wording of the law changed. And I will still tell anyone who posts any sort of anti-gun sign, non-compliant or otherwise, that I choose to spend my money elsewhere.
-Scott
