TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

michaelr424 wrote:As of today 07/28/2017 there are no 30.06 signs

Well that's good to know 6 YEARS after the last post on this thread...and two years after they took them down...

It was thoroughly documented in another post somewhere else though. They took the signs down with the passage of open carry.

I can respect that.

speedsix wrote:...well, don't that turn this thread upside down...my responses were based on the second post...oh, well...

OK.... apparently some explanations are in order....

1. Here is my "second post" which you referenced (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:The Grapevine PD considers the signs to be compliant, and they will arrest you if you are caught inside the mall with your gun. You may beat the time, but you're not going to beat the ride. Our moderator Keith B has had several exchanges with the Chief of the GPD about it, and he has it in writing.
   
   I have lived in Grapevine for 5 years now. I avoided that place like the plague anyway because I despise mall shopping, but I have managed to live happily and conduct all of my affairs without ever feeling the need to go to that mall in the more than 3 years that I've had my CHL. Pretty much every single thing that can be found there can also be found elsewhere in Grapevine, without having to get my panties in a twist over the unfriendly signs at the entrances.
   
   And, from where I live in Grapevine, right on the borders of Euless and Colleyville near Hall Johnson Rd and the 121, The Northeast Mall in Hurst, 17 minutes from my house, takes the same amount of time to get to, and it isn't posted. Guess where I go when I need a mall store.

2. I subsequently posted the following (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:

   MasterOfNone wrote:You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
   Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

   For what it is worth, here is what a CHL's experience is more likely to be like with a GPD officer: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
   
   This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there? It seems to me that, given a regular line officer's reaction to my CHL in the above linked thread, perhaps the patrol officers there are no so likely to rush into any rash actions. I'm wondering if, despite the chief's bluster, if there were some reason for getting caught in an alleged trespass, if simply telling the officer that you entered by an entrance that wasn't posted (not all of them are) and that you didn't see any sign, might give him an excuse to simply turn you lose to leave the mall rather than going through all the hassle of processing an arrest and all its attendant paperwork.
   
   I don't want to be the one to find out, and I abhor that place anyway so I'm never going to go there to begin with, but I suspect that the actual impact to the individual CHL holder might not be entirely commensurate with the chief's bluster.

3. That other topic linked to in that post was one I started after having had earlier that day an encounter with GPD involving the presentation of my CHL to the officer. How many of the people who disagree with me here actually took the time to read that thread? Here is the crux of what I posted there (LINKEY):

   in another thread The Annoyed Man wrote:He asked me a couple of other questions, like how long the event would be going on tonight, how long people would be there, stuff like that. I asked him if he needed to see my ID and he said yes. So I handed him my ID holder with both IDs displayed in it. He didn't say much. He wrote down my name and that's about it. He didn't ask if I was armed. I allowed as how it was pretty hot standing out here in the sun. He then handed my ID back to me, and we went on inside.
   
   [snip]
   
   Anyway, I was gratified that the officer didn't seem to care about my CHL. I'm guessing that he just took a look at me and assumed I was armed and wasn't worried about it. After the wuppin' GPD has taken here on this forum lately over 30.06 at the Grapevine Mills Mall, it was nice to be able to report on a professionally handled call by an officer who isn't upset by the idea of an armed citizen.

4. I posted what I posted in that second post in this thread based on my understanding of information previously shared in other threads by Keith B. A couple of pages later, Keith B interjects with the following (LINKEY):

   Keith B wrote:I want to make some clarification. When I made my inquiry, I was told there is no official policy from the department. I was told that it is felt that the signage is sufficient notification and if you are found carrying there the officer will either tell you to leave or arrest you. It would be up to the officers discretion.
   
   When i requested clarification from the Chief, he responded that I had my answer and he would respond no further to the request for information on the matter. So, depending on the officer, it may be hit or miss on being arrested or told to leave.

   In the very next post below his, I wrote (LINKEY):

   The Annoyed Man wrote:Sounds like, for better or for worse, their policy is the same as the above mentioned DPS representative's.

The crucial difference here is that my original "second post" was based on a mistaken belief that this policy was actively being enforced by the GPD. Keith's response to that further down the thread made me realize that I was wrong, and that it was up to the officer's discretion. To my mind, there is a large and significant difference between a chief's utterances which are rooted in kow-towing to powerful local business interests, and what the line officers will actually do, based on their own understanding of the law and their own intuition, regarding its application.

I, unlike others here who have chosen to "beat up on" the GPD but live in other parts of the state, actually have first hand experience in dealing with GPD line officers, on more than one occasion. In the other thread which I linked to above about my contact with them, they were responding to a burglary alarm, the back of my truck was backed up next to the door in question where the alarm was thought to have originated from, and I was the only person standing there. The officer who accosted me had every reason to suspect that I might be the cause of the alarm. I spoke calmly and did not act hinkey. I offered to show him my ID because he hadn't asked for it after a couple of minutes had gone by, and he didn't seem in a hurry to ask for it, and I needed to get out of the sun. He appeared to be not only completely uninterested in my CHL, but uninterested in whether or not I might be armed. It wasn't because he was being inattentive. He just acted like it was the most normal thing in the world, and no cause for hyperventilation. In fact, I thought he handled the whole thing with a great deal of wisdom and tact. That young man is a very good police officer. He also happens to be just about typical for the other encounters I've had under varying circumstances with GPD officers. When my wife had her "code red" moment a couple of years ago involving some illegal immigrant laborers who were trying to lure her into a bad situation after deliberately backing into her car and then "fleeing," she showed the officer she spoke to her CHL along with her TDL. He didn't comment, and he didn't ask her where the gun was. I was standing right there, so I know this to be a fact. When I finally asked him if he wanted my ID for purposes of the report, he said it wasn't necessary and didn't even ask to see it.

So there are at least TWO personal experiences with GPD involving the presentation of a CHL along with TDL to one of their officers (three, if you count the one not even wanting to see mine for his report), and there was no hubbub, no brouhaha, no drama.

THIS is why I won't engage in beating up on the GPD. My experience with them has been nothing but positive for the past five years that I've lived here. As I mentioned elsewhere not too long ago, I know the chief. Not well. He's not a friend I hang out with. But I do know him through my local chamber of commerce activities. Personally, I am not that impressed with the guy. I don't think he's stupid (he actually has a degree in engineering from UTA and originally started in police work to help pay his way through college). It's that I think he may, based on nothing more than the "vibe" I get from him, be positioned somewhere more to my left than I am comfortable with. If he were a true, rock-ribbed conservative, he would have told whomever influenced him into the wrong direction regarding 30.06 at the mall to go pound sand. Instead, I think he has taken the position that he likes to be chief, and he knows on which side his bread is buttered. That's kind of weasely. Well, not "kind of;" it IS weasely.

However, his beat officers have shown themselves time and again to be very good cops. They have apparently not arrested anybody on a 30.06 trespass violation at GVM for at least the past 5 years. They have dealt directly with me and mine in a professional and courteous manner, and never made an issue out of our CHLs or our guns. I have nothing but good things to say about them.

THAT is why I will not beat up on the entire PD.

Speedsix, I have written a very long answer here and I have tried to be as detailed as possible to explain my rationale. I think I have a superb local PD, with a weaselly bureaucrat at its head. You can get me to talk crap about him all day long, but not about the guys on the beat. I accept that you may not agree with me on any of this, but I hope that you will understand where I am coming from, and why.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Fine....

Y'all beat the crap out of them all you want. I'm not going to engage in it.

Scott in Houston wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit.

What I want to beat up on is anyone in Government who makes such a statement that appears to be obvious abuse of power of almost worse, exercise of power out of pure ignorance.
I haven't picked on one officer. In fact, my post was clearly responding to the (as I said), "in your face" attitude of the chief.
When someone in power says they're going to, in effect, change the law because they feel like it, I have a problem with that. Period. We're a "nation of laws not men."
I love my local Sugar Land PD. They've helped me out of a scrape, and I'm forever grateful, but I guarantee, I won't be defending their chief if he said something so obviously out of line with the law. It's our job as citizens to make sure government doesn't over step its boundaries, and even though this may appear to be minor, it's still overstepping.

Just because they haven't arrested anyone means nothing to me. It's the statement he made, and yes, he deserves to be beat up over it. As soon as he says, "Oops, I was wrong. Unless the signs are valid, we won't arrest," it's over. Until then, if he catches grief for it... good.

Again, I have no beef with an individual officer or any officers in the GVPD, but everything I said was directed to the chief, his policy, his attitude, and his apparent direction. I can't imagine not seeing how he deserves grief for it.

Here is what you said:

Scott in Houston wrote: I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.

I merely react to what you wrote. They're being given grief, on THIS board, for NOT having enforced a stupid policy at the street level, but you maintain that they deserve that grief.

You're flat wrong about that. You should stop digging that hole you find yourself in.

Scott in Houston wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

TAM, relax man. I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.
Should we just sit back and be ok with the police acting out of accordance with the law just because they do many other things well??

Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit. And I'm not wound up. I just feel the need to defend a very good PD from broad brush character attacks based on no facts. No, Grapevine is not a perfect town. It's a pretty good town, but not perfect. Never even seen or heard of a perfect town.....in this life. But I have had numerous interactions with Grapevine's officers, and I've never once been disappointed with any of the ones I've met.....including the most recent incident a few days ago when I had to show my IDs to an officer responding to a burglary call at my church, and he didn't even ask me if I was armed, or where my gun was. He was totally cool with an armed citizen.

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

Keith B wrote:I want to make some clarification. When I made my inquiry, I was told there is no official policy from the department. I was told that it is felt that the signage is sufficient notification and if you are found carrying there the officer will either tell you to leave or arrest you. It would be up to the officers discretion.

When i requested clarification from the Chief, he responded that I had my answer and he would respond no further to the request for information on the matter. So, depending on the officer, it may be hit or miss on being arrested or told to leave.

Sounds like, for better or for worse, their policy is the same as the above mentioned DPS representative's.

MasterOfNone wrote:You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

For what it is worth, here is what a CHL's experience is more likely to be like with a GPD officer: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there? It seems to me that, given a regular line officer's reaction to my CHL in the above linked thread, perhaps the patrol officers there are no so likely to rush into any rash actions. I'm wondering if, despite the chief's bluster, if there were some reason for getting caught in an alleged trespass, if simply telling the officer that you entered by an entrance that wasn't posted (not all of them are) and that you didn't see any sign, might give him an excuse to simply turn you lose to leave the mall rather than going through all the hassle of processing an arrest and all its attendant paperwork.

I don't want to be the one to find out, and I abhor that place anyway so I'm never going to go there to begin with, but I suspect that the actual impact to the individual CHL holder might not be entirely commensurate with the chief's bluster.

johnson0317 wrote:That is old language, and not a valid posting. However! As you may read, time after time, on this forum...you may be able to beat the rap, but not the ride. If the cop who responds is mostly familiar with the code, then those words seem pretty close to right. I keep reading that you will be alright as long as you do not remain after being told you can not carry; however, you do not have to be verbally told if the signage is correct. In the case of the sign you are talking about, I think you could go on in and be safe until told to leave. The problem, once again, is that the responding LEO may not know that the sign is not correct, and therefore not valid. Maybe you could save a picture of a valid sign, or the link to the DPS website page with the correct wording.

Just don't know if it is worth it or not.

The real problem in this case is that the Grapevine Police Department's official policy, per the Chief of the Grapevine PD, is that they will arrest you for trespass by a holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun on the basis of that signage if you are caught with a gun in that mall. Again, you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride per the department's official policy. The attitude of the corporation which led to the posting of the signs is based on ignorance of CHL. The police department's policy to enforce the signage is based on ignorance of the law. Ignorance has no place in my life; therefore, I don't go there. Because of that, I don't understand anybody's fascination with that mall.

fickman wrote:Let's hope the mall reverses its policy, the chief wakes up, or Jesus comes back before this happens.

I'm for that.

boba wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The Grapevine PD considers the signs to be compliant, and they will arrest you if you are caught inside the mall with your gun.

If they're not too busy arresting black kids for eating at the lunch counter.

That's nonsense.

blue wrote:With TAM on GVMM. AVOID!
Makes the visit to the other mall better, just knowing Grapevine AND the
city is down one more on sales/taxes and that makes the compitition two ahead.

Strange how big corps will do most anything for a 1% more profit.
GVM AND city of GV, are just about alone in a policy of rejecting 2% of the Texans AND THEIR FAMILYS.(4-5%)

Just AVOID GVM TOTALLY!

SMILE as you go by, as I did for years.

Well, that's a corporate policy, which is being enabled by the PD. Grapevine certainly does get a lot of tax revenue from the mall, but I have not found Grapevine at large to be unfriendly to CHL, and I really like living here. And the tax revenues from the mall are nothing compared to the revenues from DFW airport, which is largely located within the city limits. It's an overall pretty well run town. There is a good tax base. Things are well funded. The streets are clean and, ongoing current construction projects aside, are kept in good repair. The PD is otherwise very responsive to the needs of the residents. And I get two garbage pickups a week instead of just one. I have no complaints about living here, other than it's not a farm out in the country. And the Grapevine Mills Mall is not the only attraction in town.......although the Gray Wolf Lodge and resort is also posted 30.06. There are plenty of other things to do. I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid Grapevine, but I would tell them to avoid the mall......and it's not that great of a mall anyway. I've seen better.

USA1 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Our moderator Mike B

OOPSIE.... I meant "Keith B".............I had only one cup of coffee on board when I wrote that.

The Grapevine PD considers the signs to be compliant, and they will arrest you if you are caught inside the mall with your gun. You may beat the time, but you're not going to beat the ride. Our moderator Mike B has had several exchanges with the Chief of the GPD about it, and he has it in writing.

I have lived in Grapevine for 5 years now. I avoided that place like the plague anyway because I despise mall shopping, but I have managed to live happily and conduct all of my affairs without ever feeling the need to go to that mall in the more than 3 years that I've had my CHL. Pretty much every single thing that can be found there can also be found elsewhere in Grapevine, without having to get my panties in a twist over the unfriendly signs at the entrances.

And, from where I live in Grapevine, right on the borders of Euless and Colleyville near Hall Johnson Rd and the 121, The Northeast Mall in Hurst, 17 minutes from my house, takes the same amount of time to get to, and it isn't posted. Guess where I go when I need a mall store.