TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote: Self-defense does not include the carry of any weapon you choose.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: But as for my position on private property, the intent behind the change was to deprive all private property owners of the ability to exclude any armed LEO from their property, even when they are not on official business. This is true whether the officer is in his jurisdiction or not. There is no justification for that.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.)

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

rb4browns wrote:The law is clear (to me), by virtue of any verbal notification being valid, that the intent under law is that the property owner has every right to deny access to someone with a concealed weapon.

rb4browns wrote:I think a number of posters here are way off the mark. CHL holder or not, there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon one someone else's private property.