ScottDLS wrote: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.
But the wording is NOT clear, only in your estimation, and in the case of Love Field they would be arresting under a different statute with a different understanding of the law.
ScottDLS wrote:Do Texas peace officers just get to make up a law, arrest you for it, end then say it was their training?
Jim wrote:No, but look at the different interpretations that get taught in CHL classes, by instructors that all took the same classes.
ScottDLS wrote: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.
And having attempted to make them familiar with the statutes in question, at least at Love Field, and providing them with printed copies, they feel that they would have an easy time explaining why they had arrested you for commiting a crime.
ScottDLS wrote:As I've stated above, the law couldn't be plainer...
Then why does Love Field management and some of the LEOs there feel that they are properly posted?
ScottDLS wrote: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.
And as I suggested, we should rewrite the statute to make it clear that improper signage leads to non-applicability.
Jim wrote: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.
ScottDLS wrote: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.
So all of the tales of DC dragging their feet in implementing the court ruling are not true?
Jim wrote: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 wrote:First of all, I'm not going to get caught even if I did carry there.
I wish I knew how you intend to do that, it seems to me that there are lots of ways to get caught. Despite my best efforts to the contrary I have been made a couple of times over the years, it could happen to you.
ScottDLS wrote: 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.
But they will confiscate to defend themselves from your false arrest suit, and your knowledge that the sign exists, however unenforceable you consider it to be, will be considered adequate notice, and that, combined with your avowal to ignore what they consider to be a proper posting will land you deeper in the do-do.
ScottDLS wrote: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.
If the language of the law was clear, I would agree with you, but it is not, so I don't.
-----------------
I know the other place I was thinking of, Plano Independent School District has the driveway entrances posted, with signs that are clearly not compliant, and every Plano School Resource Officer I have spoken to about it, and because my wife works there I know several, has said they will arrest.
It's clear that the signs PISD has posted are wrong, and it's clear that PISD, being a government entity, can't post them meaningfully, but there they are, and they will prosecute.
We've 
