TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Keith - I think you're taking this personal, it's not BTW. If I were to do anything it would be in person or through my attorney, an ex-GV cop, BTW.

**edit to add: Keith put your tailfeathers down...this is just the internet.

Then I suggest you call him.

jimlongley wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Jim, I'm curious, since you claim they consider it valid - what other signs do they consider valid? What about the "Buffalo Wild Wings Bans Guns" sign at BWW in Grapevine? Seriously. And, do you have some official documentation that says they consider it valid...like I mentioned before, and was never answered - it's all hearsay until I see something official from the Grapevine PD.

Which they are you talking about now?

The Simon company considers their signs to be valid and "like all of the other area malls are posted . . ." which is from an email response from them. A reply to that email stating that the other malls are not posted was not replied to.

I didn't get a letter from DPS, but I did ask for one, when they told me on the phone that as long as the attempt was made they would consider it valid. The young lady I was talking to at the time didn't like it much when I suggested that the same logic should mean that doing 49 in a 40 zone was making an effort to stay within the posted limit.

I don't think that a "gunbusters" sign would fall under a valid attempt to post, if that's what you mean. I haven't seen BWW's sign, it doesn't seem to exist in the Plano store, but they do have a blue TABC sign. Is BWW's sign posted?

The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, the last time I was there, was posted with a 5x8 sign, but you have to pass through a metal detector to get in, so you are going to get verbal notice, which doesn't have to meet any standards.

The Allen Police Department has a sign, which doesn't meet any standards, and they consider it valid. Plano has similar signs.

The problem is that the law is not clear, not in the least, and all of this debate is merely a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. If a police officer thinks he has the right to arrest you, he can do so, if a prosecutor wants to prosecute you, he can do so, just look at last year's flap about the State Fair in Dallas, with DPS stating that a private security company working for a private company that runs the fair on city property could legally record your name and information or ban you from the grounds if carrying. That is just wrong on so many levels, but they did it, and got away with it.

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:I take it you've had some interaction with the Sgt. regarding this? Anything written, as in official documentation? I doubt I'd call him an idiot...but maybe something along the lines of "the law states that the sign must have this, this and this....the sign in question says this, and any idiot can clearly see that it's not valid" LOL

No, I haven't directly spoken with anyone on this at Grapevine PD, but I know who he is. Others have spoken with various officers and they all state the same thing. This is my last response on this as it is

If you want to follow up with GPD, then please feel free to do so, but I am tired of arguing that they take this stance since myself and several others have stated the same thing and you refuse to believe it.

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Well Keith, all kidding aside, how else can you call it? It's in PLAIN ENGLISH, these guys can read and probably have at least gone to college if not graduated with a degree, right?

Please do speak to them, seriously...educate them, no, I'm NOT kidding...PLEASE do...and which "them" would it be? Maybe we could have a sit-down chat/meeting with them, seriously. I *almost* did that with about 5 officers the other night, they were sitting at a table next to me. I figured it would be best to start at the top though.

I doubt you will get any different answer. Since you are a local resident, it might carry more weight if you contacted them. Sgt. Roath is the Public Relations officer for the Grapevine PD. But a word of caution; don't call him an idiot when speaking to him if he says they consider it valid.

jimlongley wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

jimlongley wrote:All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

But they consider it valid.

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Then they're idiots.

jimlongley wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

jimlongley wrote:All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

But they consider it valid.

I'll pass that info along on your behalf when I speak with them.

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Keith - and others - with this logic then it really sounds like you shouldn't go ANYWHERE that has ANY type of "no guns"/gunbuster, etc. sign...just saying, not being confrontational, mind you. I don't think that way...but in reality...and speaking of reality...can you, or anyone else on here, show us documented instances of CHL folks that were arrested and/or prosecuted for this? I'd really like to see the reality of it, if you don't mind. It's one thing when a cop tells you that "he'd arrest somebody for doing that" but what's the reality of it, meaning what has really happened? Was it all just bravado talk? That's what I'm getting at.

I am not aware of any actual cases on concealed carry where the sign was invalid and they were discovered and arrested for criminal trespass, but there may be some. However, there are plenty of cases of arrests being made for other things that were not against the law, but the person was taken in and booked anyway. So, with that logic, you can bet there COULD be a case where you were discovered carrying and be arrested. You don't know any more than anyone else that it COULDN'T happen. Are you willing to be a test case since you live in Grapevine??

jimlongley wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

jimlongley wrote:All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

But they consider it valid.

Keith B wrote:If you DO get caught carrying, validly posted or not, they CAN arrest you. You will spend your time and possibly $$$ proving they are wrong. And, if you go back after restitution, you may or may not get it on a false arrest case. Either way you will be out time and money.

If you know it is invalid and your chances of getting caught are slim, then by all means that is your prerogative carry there. If you are not comfortable and willing to possibly take the ride if caught, then don't carry there.

jimlongley wrote:All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

marksiwel wrote: You want to fight that in court? I dont