TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:

EEllis wrote:

JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?

Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed

That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?

My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
....
(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was
forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a
commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator
under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the
peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of
an official duty while carrying the weapon.

Taypo wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Taypo wrote:
Im in no way, shape or form cop bashing here. I don't deny that many off duty cops step up to the plate and do a great job. So do countless civilians who don't have benefit of a badge to get them access to 30.06 location while armed.

He can gripe all he wants about being "forced" to disarm despite his department's policy, but it doesn't change the fact that they do not allow guns in that establishment. He's no better or no worse than anyone else once he takes that uniform off and is participating in an activity of his choosing at a location of his choosing.

So you have never expressed any negativity about a business posting 30.06? You and others can "gripe" but he deserves derogatory comments when he dislikes being disarmed? It's not about being better, I don't believe someone is "better" than others because of their career choice, he however different that non-law enforcement. Different responsibilities, different legal standards, and yes that does LEGALLY continue even after he takes off his uniform.

I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.

The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.

And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.

steveincowtown wrote:I support LEOs, but IMHO the House of Blues has the right to not allow entry. It is a matter of property rights.

Being an LEO is no more a protected class than being a CHLer.