grapevine mills mall 3006?

[Oldgringo]

03Lightningrocks wrote:

I do feel that the posting of signs, like the one being discussed on this thread, make the intentions of the property owners quite obvious and once I know a place is anti CHL, they no longer get my business.

Precisely my point, thank you.

[The Annoyed Man]

Reading how afraid some of you fellers are of the government, specifically the police agencies, I am amazed we have any constitutional rights at all. I for one will carry past any and all no guns allowed signs that don't legally apply to me...every time. I will also keep my weapon concealed...every time. I refuse to allow my rights as a citizen of the United States be trampled by police officers or any other law enforcement agency. Quite frankly...I am not showing much bravery in doing so since there is no way in the world that some cop is going to randomly pick me out of a crowd for a strip search in the mall.

I do feel that the posting of signs, like the one being discussed on this thread, make the intentions of the property owners quite obvious and once I know a place is anti CHL, they no longer get my business.

I'm not afraid of the government. Let's get that part clear right now. I am not afraid.

I also know that there is literally nothing inside that mall that would make me want to go in there that I can't find somewhere else. Not one thing. Yes, concealed is concealed, but stuff happens. We have a recent thread here posted by someone who dropped their pistol in a toilet stall, in plain view of the person in the next stall over. We have another current thread about what to say to someone who is inadvertently exposing their concealed pistol. Stuff happens. IF I go into that mall, and IF stuff happens, then I am likely to have to deal with Mall Security which is unsympathetic.

I also know what my time is worth, and that as a self-employed businessman, I cannot support my family from a jail cell. You may ultimately prevail, but even if you do, you're not going to beat the ride downtown; you ARE going to spend some time behind bars while your attorney, which you pay for, gets things sorted out and gets you released; you ARE going to have to post a bond. You ARE going to face a prosecution, and you ARE going to face the possible, at least temporary, revocation of your CHL. So yes, you may prevail in court, but even if you do, the state is not going to refund the lost money or time to you. That is gone, so there is a literal cost associated with these things. When you are married with dependents and above a certain age, your priorities are different, and you become somewhat more risk averse. In my case, the potential cost is a risk I wish to avoid, so I avoid it. That's me, excersizing my choice, and being a better husband and father because of it.

It's not fear, man; it's application of common sense. I pick my fights, and I refuse to fight fights for their own sake. There has to be A) some principled reason for why I would take a fight on; B) a better than 50% chance of winning the fight; and C) I have to be able to bear the financial cost of the fight. If the occasion does not meet all three requirements, I'm not interested in the fight because I have to consider my family's welfare — not just my own. Two out of three ain't gonna cut it, and only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

I have to say, it is cheap and easy to impugn the courage and honor of others when you don't stand in their shoes. So if you want to go off tilting at windmills, be my guest; but I would surely appreciate it if you would quit smearing others who refuse to go tilting with you.

[Oldgringo]

with TAM.

[Purplehood]

with TAM.

He is on an eloquence roll today. Well most days...but today is good.

[joe817]

with TAM.

Me too.

[jimlongley]

Jim -

What precisely would the officers at DFW or Love Field submit as the charge when they arrested a CHL holder for carrying? The intent of the signs at Dallas Love or the invisible signs at DFW is irrelevant. There is no law that makes it illegal for a CHL holder to carry in the non-secure areas of these airports as they are property of Texas government entities. How would the officers, especially at DFW, submit that their actions were proper enforcement of the law?

That's a question you would have to ask them, not me, I tried to re-educate a few, but was met with dogged resistance to a change in their interpretation. There are other threads here that show the Love Field signage, and some of the officers there state that they would arrest under "Trespass by a CHL holder."

Do Texas peace officers just get to make up a law, arrest you for it, end then say it was their training?

No, but look at the different interpretations that get taught in CHL classes, by instructors that all took the same classes.

I mean even if they had a sympathetic prosecuting attorney in Tarrant County, I bet they'd get sanctioned by the judge at arraignment for submitting such a bogus case. I don't think there would be any bail because the charges would get tossed at arraignment. If it was a weekend or something and they didn't get you promptly arraigned, I think you'd have an even better false arrest or even federal "official oppression" case. Personally, I've carried at both airports because I know it is completely legal.

You would be, and are, betting an awful lot on your interpretation being the one that prevails. Yes, "common sense" says that improper signage is meaningless, but we have DAs, DPS attorneys, and LEOs all over the state saying that they consider something that looks close to what the statute requires to be a valid attempt and that they would arrest and prosecute. This is why we need to get the law changed, at a minimum with plainer wording, such as "any sign not complying with the wording and size will be considered invalid and a defense to arrest and prosectution." At a maximum, anyone posting an invalid sign and trying to prosecute, as well as any officers involved in arresting someone due to an improper sign, will bear civil and penal liability for their acts.

On private property like Grapevine Mills, I still think someone could prevail as not having received effective notice because the law is quite clear on the sign (notice) requirements, and Grapevine Mills doesn't meet them. However, the cops/DA might be able to sustain a charge at least until trial.

-Scott

The problem is that the law is only slightly clearer than the Mississippi at flood, and the people charged with enforcing it are supplying their own, or their department's, interpretation, which further roils up the bottom.

I also know officers in several areas who would not arrest for an invalid sign - when I pointed out to the head of our Citizens' Police Academy a few years ago, that the signs on the police and fire facilities was improper, the signs disappeared within a couple of months. I am friends with an officer who has told me that despite the signs being gone, the city, as well as several officers, but not he, would arrest and prosecute for a new sign that they have, which does not meet anything like a proper standard.

It's not the government in general that I am afraid of, it's the people in it, and the slowly grinding wheels of justice throughout the system, after all, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow us recourse against governmental tyranny, but I am not so willing to put myself at risk, nor is there something that I need so much, as to do business at Grapevine Mills.

Take a look at how long it took Heller to get to SCOTUS, and then the vote was close, and yet Heller still can't register a semi-automatic handgun because it has been declared a machine gun. Take a look at how long it took MacDonald to get where it is, and it's still not a sure thing.

All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

[PUCKER]

Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

[ScottDLS]

Jim -

What precisely would the officers at DFW or Love Field submit as the charge when they arrested a CHL holder for carrying? The intent of the signs at Dallas Love or the invisible signs at DFW is irrelevant. There is no law that makes it illegal for a CHL holder to carry in the non-secure areas of these airports as they are property of Texas government entities. How would the officers, especially at DFW, submit that their actions were proper enforcement of the law?

That's a question you would have to ask them, not me, I tried to re-educate a few, but was met with dogged resistance to a change in their interpretation. There are other threads here that show the Love Field signage, and some of the officers there state that they would arrest under "Trespass by a CHL holder."

Then he would be explaining to the prosecuting attorney or the judge at arraignment why he was wasting their time and had arrested someone under TX 46.035, when there is nothing in the statute that applies. Airports and signs are not mentioned anywhere in the statute. If you really can't depend on clear wording in the statute to protect you, I'm not sure how you would be comfortable carrying with a CHL at all, anywhere. I mean cops like the ones above could just arrest you for Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon PC 46.02, even though CHL holders are specifically exempted from the statute.

Do Texas peace officers just get to make up a law, arrest you for it, end then say it was their training?

No, but look at the different interpretations that get taught in CHL classes, by instructors that all took the same classes.

In the case of Dallas Love and DFW there really isn't much interpretation required. Neither PC 46.035 or PC 30.06 apply. Any passing familiarity with the statute would make that clear. This is where the peace officer would have a tough time explaining why he had a reason to arrest you.

I mean even if they had a sympathetic prosecuting attorney in Tarrant County, I bet they'd get sanctioned by the judge at arraignment for submitting such a bogus case. I don't think there would be any bail because the charges would get tossed at arraignment. If it was a weekend or something and they didn't get you promptly arraigned, I think you'd have an even better false arrest or even federal "official oppression" case. Personally, I've carried at both airports because I know it is completely legal.

You would be, and are, betting an awful lot on your interpretation being the one that prevails. Yes, "common sense" says that improper signage is meaningless, but we have DAs, DPS attorneys, and LEOs all over the state saying that they consider something that looks close to what the statute requires to be a valid attempt and that they would arrest and prosecute. This is why we need to get the law changed, at a minimum with plainer wording, such as "any sign not complying with the wording and size will be considered invalid and a defense to arrest and prosectution." At a maximum, anyone posting an invalid sign and trying to prosecute, as well as any officers involved in arresting someone due to an improper sign, will bear civil and penal liability for their acts.

As I've stated above, the law couldn't be plainer...

TX PC 30.06 (e) It is an exception to the application of this statute that the property on which the license owner carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

This is not a defense to prosecution, it is a non-applicability of the statute. In the case of DFW, there's no statute at all prohibiting the conduct.

On private property like Grapevine Mills, I still think someone could prevail as not having received effective notice because the law is quite clear on the sign (notice) requirements, and Grapevine Mills doesn't meet them. However, the cops/DA might be able to sustain a charge at least until trial.

-Scott

The problem is that the law is only slightly clearer than the Mississippi at flood, and the people charged with enforcing it are supplying their own, or their department's, interpretation, which further roils up the bottom.

I also know officers in several areas who would not arrest for an invalid sign - when I pointed out to the head of our Citizens' Police Academy a few years ago, that the signs on the police and fire facilities was improper, the signs disappeared within a couple of months. I am friends with an officer who has told me that despite the signs being gone, the city, as well as several officers, but not he, would arrest and prosecute for a new sign that they have, which does not meet anything like a proper standard.

It's not the government in general that I am afraid of, it's the people in it, and the slowly grinding wheels of justice throughout the system, after all, the whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow us recourse against governmental tyranny, but I am not so willing to put myself at risk, nor is there something that I need so much, as to do business at Grapevine Mills.

While I think the 30.06 statute is clearer that you suggest, I tend to agree with your sentiment about the government. However, I think your risk of discovery at Grapevine Mills is minimal and were I to want to carry there, I would do so with the belief that was not breaking the law.

Take a look at how long it took Heller to get to SCOTUS, and then the vote was close, and yet Heller still can't register a semi-automatic handgun because it has been declared a machine gun. Take a look at how long it took MacDonald to get where it is, and it's still not a sure thing.

Actually, shortly after Heller the district court required DC to rewrite their law regarding handgun possession and one journalist who is a District resident legally purchased a Glock 17 and ammunition, that previously would have been considered an machine gun under DC law.

All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

First of all, I'm not going to get caught even if I did carry there. Secondly, they are not going to confiscate my computer for some bull misdemeanor that has a high likelihood of being dismissed before trial. Finally, I am not aware that any entrance of Grapevine Mills mall is properly posted with a 30.06 notice as I have not observed one the numerous times that I've been there...and I looked. If they manage subpoena the web site and identify me through my postings, there is nothing to find. I've never received notice under 30.06 from Grapevine Mills and have never seen credible evidence here that suggests that they provided me with such.

I understand your concern for bearing the expense being charged with a crime and having to defend yourself. But personally, I balance that concern against the clear language of the law and my low likelihood of discovery.

[C-dub]

I'm not afraid of the government either, but rather wary and suspicious. Also, I don't go poking sticks or throwing rocks at animals either. You never know when one of them is going to say, that's enough and come after me. I might prevail, but it might not be pretty either.

BTW, I hate it when stuff happens.

[Keith B]

I understand your concern for bearing the expense being charged with a crime and having to defend yourself. But personally, I balance that concern against the clear language of the law and my low likelihood of discovery.

That is the bottom line on all of these posts.

If you DO get caught carrying, validly posted or not, they CAN arrest you. You will spend your time and possibly $$$ proving they are wrong. And, if you go back after restitution, you may or may not get it on a false arrest case. Either way you will be out time and money.

If you know it is invalid and your chances of getting caught are slim, then by all means that is your prerogative carry there. If you are not comfortable and willing to possibly take the ride if caught, then don't carry there.

[PUCKER]

Keith - and others - with this logic then it really sounds like you shouldn't go ANYWHERE that has ANY type of "no guns"/gunbuster, etc. sign...just saying, not being confrontational, mind you. I don't think that way...but in reality...and speaking of reality...can you, or anyone else on here, show us documented instances of CHL folks that were arrested and/or prosecuted for this? I'd really like to see the reality of it, if you don't mind. It's one thing when a cop tells you that "he'd arrest somebody for doing that" but what's the reality of it, meaning what has really happened? Was it all just bravado talk? That's what I'm getting at.

If you DO get caught carrying, validly posted or not, they CAN arrest you. You will spend your time and possibly $$$ proving they are wrong. And, if you go back after restitution, you may or may not get it on a false arrest case. Either way you will be out time and money.

If you know it is invalid and your chances of getting caught are slim, then by all means that is your prerogative carry there. If you are not comfortable and willing to possibly take the ride if caught, then don't carry there.

[Keith B]

Keith - and others - with this logic then it really sounds like you shouldn't go ANYWHERE that has ANY type of "no guns"/gunbuster, etc. sign...just saying, not being confrontational, mind you. I don't think that way...but in reality...and speaking of reality...can you, or anyone else on here, show us documented instances of CHL folks that were arrested and/or prosecuted for this? I'd really like to see the reality of it, if you don't mind. It's one thing when a cop tells you that "he'd arrest somebody for doing that" but what's the reality of it, meaning what has really happened? Was it all just bravado talk? That's what I'm getting at.

I am not aware of any actual cases on concealed carry where the sign was invalid and they were discovered and arrested for criminal trespass, but there may be some. However, there are plenty of cases of arrests being made for other things that were not against the law, but the person was taken in and booked anyway. So, with that logic, you can bet there COULD be a case where you were discovered carrying and be arrested. You don't know any more than anyone else that it COULDN'T happen. Are you willing to be a test case since you live in Grapevine??

[jimlongley]

Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

But they consider it valid.

[PUCKER]

Then they're idiots.

Jim, take a look at the picture of the sign I posted...it's NOT valid per the law, notice the incorrect wording.

All your betting is all well and good, but you get caught carrying at Grapevine Mills and they are going to come down on you hard, they have told us that over and over, and you can also bet that they will confiscate your computer as part of the investigation and find out that you knew that they had a valid sign at one entrance, which they consider a valid posting of the entire building and your effective notice defense will have flown away.

But they consider it valid.

[PUCKER]

It's funny how all these discussions boil down to "are you willing to be the test case?"....what happened to "the law is the law" and "concealed is concealed"?? That's how I look at it. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Keith - and others - with this logic then it really sounds like you shouldn't go ANYWHERE that has ANY type of "no guns"/gunbuster, etc. sign...just saying, not being confrontational, mind you. I don't think that way...but in reality...and speaking of reality...can you, or anyone else on here, show us documented instances of CHL folks that were arrested and/or prosecuted for this? I'd really like to see the reality of it, if you don't mind. It's one thing when a cop tells you that "he'd arrest somebody for doing that" but what's the reality of it, meaning what has really happened? Was it all just bravado talk? That's what I'm getting at.

I am not aware of any actual cases on concealed carry where the sign was invalid and they were discovered and arrested for criminal trespass, but there may be some. However, there are plenty of cases of arrests being made for other things that were not against the law, but the person was taken in and booked anyway. So, with that logic, you can bet there COULD be a case where you were discovered carrying and be arrested. You don't know any more than anyone else that it COULDN'T happen. Are you willing to be a test case since you live in Grapevine??