TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub

03Lightningrocks wrote:
Dad24GreatKids wrote:So what are the chances that the Legislature will do something to clarify all of this during the next session? Who do we need to be contacting in state government about these types of gray areas?
There actually aren't any gray areas. The law is the law. Your responsibility is to know it. CHL instructors don't make the law. State workers don't make the law. Where you can and can't carry is specifically laid out. What signs can and cannot be legally applied to you are also specifically spelled out.

I was thinking the same thing. With regards to this thread, there doesn't seem to be anything that requires clearing up legislatively.

C-dub

ScottDLS wrote: The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

Yes, but there is no penalty any more. And also, as lighteningrocks says, and I understand your point of likeliness, a LEO cannot just simply ask someone for ID unless they have a clear reason to. It's way too early for me to be able to find this in the statutes this morning, but there are clear guidelines to when a LEO may ask for ID. And I could very well be wrong on this one, but if one doesn't have to show ID, then I would think that one also doesn't have to show the CHL.

C-dub

Sewer_Ice wrote:
PUCKER wrote:Maybe the phone number is routed to the Grapevine Police Department??

What's the point of a law if it doesn't mean anything? Especially to the people sworn to uphold it? And to the people that work for the DPS CHL unit...?? That's literally C R A Z Y...

Whats the jab at grapevine PD for? I ask because I live there, and while waiting for my CHL to come in I've noticed quite a few businesses with improper signage. How does grapevine PD treat these signs, for example the one @ buffalo wild wings.

Edit: Another question is this: If it says "no weapons allowed on premises" the argument can be made that this insinuates that it refers to illegal weapons, as LE is allowed on premises with guns, as should a permitted person.

GVPD has stated that they would arrest a person for carrying a concealed handgun in the Grapevine Mills Mall. The signs posted at the mall entrances are not correct and they either don't care or don't know. I think at least a couple folks on this forum have called to ask and pointed out that the sign are not compliant with 30.06, but whoever they spoke with either insisted that they were compliant or it didn't matter.

As far as Buffalo Wind Wings, if you're referring to the unlicensed possession sign, that is not an invalid sign. It just has no bearing on a CHL.

C-dub

On the contrary. Unless you're the President, trying to clarify yourself is a good thing.

C-dub

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

C-dub

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.

C-dub

57Coastie wrote: 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?

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?

You're making my head hurt, Jim. It sounds like you're saying that your friend is saying that any sign is notice, when the statutes say otherwise. That's one thing I'm having trouble with. I'm also having trouble with a compliant 30.06 sign authorizing entry. I thought it prohibited entry of a CHL if one were carrying. I majored in science, not English, so maybe that's one reason for my headache over this.

C-dub

PUCKER wrote:Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.

I like the way you think Pucker.

Now, if only we can get that parking lot situation straightened out. I'm pretty sure it will get passed in 2011, so there's less than 20 months to go until September 1, 2011.

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???