TexasCHLforum.com

jmra

bdickens wrote:
jmra wrote:I think the real problem we are dealing with is the expectation of an educated response from uneducated people. A friend was pulled over for speeding the other day. The officer was very nice (only gave him a warning). During the stop the officer asked if he had any weapons in the car. Friend stated that he had a loaded handgun in the console. Officer asked if he had a chl. Friend stated that it was expired. The officer had already run him thru the system and knew he didn't have a record. The officer told him that because he was not traveling overnite he was guilty of unlawful carry and he should arrest him on the spot.
Of course this is not the case sinse HB 823 went into effect in sep 07. The total ignorance of people whose jobs require them to know better amazes me. Local PDs should require these guys to under go routine testing to ensure they are staying updated on current laws.

I ran into the same thing recently with a high ranking officer who tried to convince me that you could not cc in a church with chl. He brought back regs he obtained from the DA who also agreed with him. Of course they both had to eat crow when I informed them that the regs they were quoting had not been valid since 2004. They wanted to know how I had been able to respond so quickly with that info. Answer...iPhone and google. They had spent hours doing their research. Mine took 30 seconds. Go figure.

I think I would have told that officer to go ahead and do so.
if my friend knew then what he knows now I'm sure he would have said the same as you have suggested.

That being said, prepaid legal is sounding better everyday.

jmra

sjfcontrol wrote:Good post! What happened to your unlucky friend?

Nothing. He let him go. Just told him not to carry the gun in the car. He is going to renew his chl so he is not concerned about it. I would be asking the officer to meet me for lunch and then provide him with much needed education.

jmra

I think the real problem we are dealing with is the expectation of an educated response from uneducated people. A friend was pulled over for speeding the other day. The officer was very nice (only gave him a warning). During the stop the officer asked if he had any weapons in the car. Friend stated that he had a loaded handgun in the console. Officer asked if he had a chl. Friend stated that it was expired. The officer had already run him thru the system and knew he didn't have a record. The officer told him that because he was not traveling overnite he was guilty of unlawful carry and he should arrest him on the spot.

Of course this is not the case sinse HB 823 went into effect in sep 07. The total ignorance of people whose jobs require them to know better amazes me. Local PDs should require these guys to under go routine testing to ensure they are staying updated on current laws.

I ran into the same thing recently with a high ranking officer who tried to convince me that you could not cc in a church with chl. He brought back regs he obtained from the DA who also agreed with him. Of course they both had to eat crow when I informed them that the regs they were quoting had not been valid since 2004. They wanted to know how I had been able to respond so quickly with that info. Answer...iPhone and google. They had spent hours doing their research. Mine took 30 seconds. Go figure.

jmra

I know a guy who recently took the CHL instructor class. He said the guys teaching the class were still teaching that it was a violation to carry in a place of worship. If the guys teaching the teachers are screwing that up then what to you expect from someone answering the phone or someone with the title of tech?

jmra

C-dub wrote:I don't know about everyone else, but I thought I detected some sarcasm in there. It's all good.

Guilty as charged. I must be angry or displaying my own insecurities.

At least that's what I am doing according to "Psychology Today".

jmra

C-dub wrote:
jmra wrote: Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.
Oh boy, now you've done it. Can open, worms everywhere!

There's gotta be some kind of permit for the business, but oh boy.

I should have put a

or a

at the end of my post.

jmra

57Coastie wrote:I must say that after a good night's sleep I am ready to go on to other things, like the range, where I have an appointment with my son, and perhaps another member/friend, later today.

Cheers,

Jim

Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.

jmra

57Coastie wrote:
7075-T7 wrote:My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.
Arguably, yes. The argument my friend gave me is that "actual notice," given by any means, with any words, verbal or written, is effective notice that you cannot remain in the premises with a concealed handgun. On the other hand, if you do not speak English, notice given in English, verbal or written, is arguably not "actual" notice. This is true even though you may have lawfully entered the premises.

Where this argument gets to be fun is if a noncompliant sign (a "Gunbuster") is posted on the door, saying, for example, "NO GUNS PERMITTED IN THE STORE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CHL." Since it is noncompliant, you may open the door and enter, but once you are in, haven't you already been given actual notice by the Gunbuster sign, therefore you have to turn around and leave, or, perish the thought, although it was lawful to enter, the fact that you did in fact enter, makes your presence unlawful?

Questions like this, guys and gals, is how lawyers make a living. And judges also make a living with questions like this, but judges can often decide undecideable questions so as to make the whole package make sense. Happens all the time when there are arguably inconsistent rules.

Whether my lawyer-friend's suggestion is right or wrong, and it is only that, a suggestion, at least we have people now reading the statutes and arriving at a conclusion, and not just parroting, for example, an instructor who may be as dumb as a post -- and I had one of them when I got my first CHL. All he did for 10 hours was tell us what a great shot he was, and then told us the answers to all the written questions.

Jim

PS: I would suggest that all hands take care not to skip over one very important word: Entry -- entry -- entry, etc. Is that not what the 30-06 compliant sign authorizes? And only that?

The legislature created 30.06 to ensure that gun buster signs were not valid notice to CHLs. If they had intended gun busters signs to be notice then there would not have been any reason for the creation of a 30.06 sign. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a lawyer to figure that one out.

I love lawyers. At a board meeting I recently attended our lawyer was suggesting that we change some wording on a document to meet some legal requirements. We asked how he thought it should be worded. He thought about it and said lets word it this way. Then he said no that will cause this problem. Lets word it this way...no that will cause this problem...to make a long story short we went back to the orginal wording. Said all that to say this...lawyers look for things to mean something that everybody knows they don't mean. With the exception of some liberal federal judges most courts are going to look at the intent of the legislature that passed the law. In this case the intent is very obvious.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???