TexasCHLforum.com

wgoforth wrote:
Sounds likely.... but be aware that as instructors we have immunity from suit (unless there was fraud or deceptive trade practice), even though in class they said we can be sued for teaching something. I was surprised we weren't told about this immunity in class and had to learn it elsewhere:

Very true. However, never forget that immunity (in the civil sense) is on the same keel as an "Affirmative Defense" in the criminal sense...IOW, there's nothing preventing someone from filing suit. Once the suit is filed, immunity or not, you have to answer, or face default judgement (i.e. losing the case by failing to defend the allegations). Even if you win, you lose. Sure you're going to "win the suit" or even be granted a dismissal, but you're still out legal fees, court costs, and time from work/loss of potential income.

And don't be fooled by the "loser pays" concept. I've won a couple of those over the years too...and still never got reimbursed. Turns out that many people filing frivolous/nonsense lawsuits are judgement-proof.

All that aside, I agree that anyone teaching the "never cross a no-guns sign" makes a mockery of the hard work that Charles, the TSRA, and others put into the section 30.06.

And I'm with Longtooth on this one...our job is to teach the law, as it is written, discuss any applicable case law, and let the students make their own decisions.

As with all things educational,I see our job as instructors as that of tour guide...to introduce our students to the fundamental knowledge and facts (Law, Dispute Resolution, Safe Handling & Usage, Proficiency, and Self-Defense) while guiding them to a path of learning and decision making....and to HOPEFULLY inspire the desire to continue learning on their own.

Of course, I'm pretty much "preaching to the choir" here, since ongoing self-education and collaboration is the core of this forum :)

I was in that class with you. Frankly, my take on it was that they didn't completely agree with the interpretation BUT...

From an "in the trenches" perspective, the law (as written) doesn't always "mean" the same thing on the street as it does in court--hence our quip that "you'll beat the rap, but you're taking the ride." Mostly because much of the interpretation of these things (these little uncertainties--like whether the posting is truly "contrasting" or whether it's posted on city property, and therefore unenforceable) comes from case law. When you consider that 30.06 can only apply to a CHL holder, and follow that with the 1% or so of CHL holder busts (for anything at all--most of which aren't firearms related in the first place), there's simply no case law to go off of.

The job of LEO, in this context, is to report the belief that a crime has been committed, submit the evidence and actor of same to the DA for potential prosecution...not to interpret law--that's the job of the courts.

Let's follow that with the fact that the information they were passing to us, we're going to pass down to our students, who are going to pass it to their fellow CHL holders...

If I (as an instructor) tell you that "30.06 postings on city property are unenforceable," and you push the issue at a gun show, and get picked up, you might have standing to sue me for giving you bad information (vicarious liability)....

NOW CONSIDER...that if I tell you to NEVER cross a 30.06 posting, and you'll never be arrested or prosecuted on 30.06...well, you might not go some places that you actually can legally go, but sure enough--you'll never get picked up for violation of 30.06.

Which is a safer position? Both are correct...both are accurate...which one reduces my liability?

I'm not defending the position here. I'm just trying to explain/understand why it has been stated the way it was stated in the class.

I think the alcohol question goes pretty much the same way. If you don't drink anything while carrying a gun, you will never have to deal with an LEO's field interpretation of "intoxicated." If you have a beer with your steak at dinner, and get pulled over later, there's a question to answer. Or as the Captain put it "we will have a problem." I didn't take his "problem" statement to mean "your're taking a ride," but that we've got more to talk about than if he didn't smell that beer in the first place.

Again, erring to the side of caution--especially when the information gets passed down through the "telephone game" a few times...