TexasCHLforum.com

Jaguar wrote:I emailed the reporter, lets see if they fix it... (not holding my breath)

Edit to add: Wow, got a reply.

From: Phil Jankowski [mailto:kdhphilip@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:22 PM
To: (Me)
Subject: Re: Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Owen Sampson

Thanks for the input and criticism. We have heard from several people about this error today and will have a correction in tomorrow's edition. Thanks for reading
Phil
_______________________________________________
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:15 PM, (Jaguar) wrote:
Dear sir,

In your article on kdhnews.com, you state;

Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Owen Sampson had a concealed handgun license when he brought his Springfield .45 into Metroplex Hospital’s emergency room March 30. State law prohibits concealed weapons from being brought to several places, such as convenience stores, bars and hospitals. (Emphasis mine)

This statement is false, and I would like to see it corrected. There is no law in Texas that prevents CHL holders from entering hospitals or convenience stores unless the business is posted in accordance with Texas Penal Code §30.06. There are off limit areas, such as schools, polling places on voting day, government courts, racetracks, and the secured area of an airport, but not the examples you gave. More to the point, it is not illegal to bring a firearm into a hospital, which is what Sgt. Sampson was charged with and the whole point of this story and why the charges were dismissed, he was arrested on a false charge.

Sloppy reporting in my opinion, you did not take the time to learn the laws you are writing about.

Regards,
JAG

E.Marquez wrote:http://kdhnews.com/news/charges-dismiss ... l?mode=jqm

A Fort Hood soldier who was arrested and charged with a crime for bringing a concealed handgun into a local hospital had his charges dismissed.

Staff Sgt. Nathaniel Owen Sampson had a concealed handgun license when he brought his Springfield .45 into Metroplex Hospital’s emergency room March 30. State law prohibits concealed weapons from being brought to several places, such as convenience stores, bars and hospitals.

bronco78 wrote:I Spoke to Mr Sampson’s lawyer this morning... I am meeting him Friday for a longer discussion.
Thus far, this case is what it has been alluded to here, wrongfully accused initially, and amended charges added that have no merit but cannot be proved as wrongly charged, just not supportable.

Im told the NRA will not weigh in with support as this case does not deal in a rights issue or constitutional issue.

That leaves Mr Sampson to mount his own defense, at his own cost.
The lawyer handing the case, former military enlisted, retired as a Master Sergeant, went to school, completed law degree, and started his practice right back here in the Belton area.
Is a NRA member, active in shooting sports (if you do steel challenges at the Temple club you may know him)

Im not willing to stand behind Mr Sampson, nor drop a dime in a bucket for his defense…. But Im close on both accounts..
Those who may be interested in doing that same, check back here after Friday… I’ll lay out everything I know,, and if any are interested in donating to Mr Sampson I’ll ask the lawyer to set something up.

JALLEN wrote:

JP171 wrote:JM,

The questions about weapons may seem valid on the surface, however the medic should advise the LEO as the medic probably has a better line on suicidal ideology than the officer, extrapiramidal reactions are not usually the cause of concerne to suicidal ideation, should the woman have a history of similar behavior the medic should know and move toward that DX, however with the available info this seems like the LEO ran the DL of all parties involved and made a blanket statement or order(civilian leo can't give orders) or directive that was not followed, we have no duty to follow such directives on the 3 3 rule 3 seconds or 3 feet. I am not really being as bad as you might think but I dislike the attitude that civilians must do as the LEO says cause he ain't a civilian(yes he/she is cause they ain't military) the leo gets upset because he or she believes that they have absolute authority and control over another civilian and contemp of cop applies, but there is no such charge or law or rule, a LEO is a CIVILIAN period, I have the right to ignore anything he says period, just can't interfere with him doing his job.

The common parlance these days is that sworn officers are the "us's", and everyone else is a "them," a mere civilian. It's part of the patois of the so-called "Blue Mafia."

WildBill wrote:

snatchel wrote:Side note that I'm not sure anyone has considered--and I didn't see it mentioned. Legal assistance is free if you are military and use military lawyers. That said, if I were him and I was innocent, I would fight the case too. I'd have nothing to lose monetarily other than what would be lost anyway (the TRP). He can afford to ride it out.

He is not using a military lawyer.