JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?
Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed
That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?
My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?
Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed
That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?
My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.
He couldn't be trespassed for not complying w/ house rules re: carrying a firearm as LEO's are exempt from that provision of 30.05, though I guess they could "make up" another reason for kicking him out, though that might breach the implied contract represented by his ticket.
PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
....
(i) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was
forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a
commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator
under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the
peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of
an official duty while carrying the weapon.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
JALLEN wrote:So do we conclude that this off duty SO deputy could lawfully carry in HOB, but for their private policies?
Yes without a doubt. The Deputy would be trespassing if they asked him to leave for not complying with their house rules but there would not be any violation for him being armed
That doesn't make any sense. He is exempt from a 30.06 sign which is notice that firearms are forbidden, but if he is told to leave, he is trespassing the same as you and me?
My San Diego cop buddies claimed they were required to carry at all times and in all places. Of course, there is no sign business in that socialist hellhole, probably because there are so few licensed carriers.
They can ask anyone to leave as long as it isn't for the "wrong" reason.
JALLEN wrote:In reviewing this thread, I don't see a claim by this officer that he is required to carry his weapon.
There is a question of TABC regs. Are LEOs bound by the liquor rules, blue, red etc?
What I am trying to figure out is what we are really dealing with.
Is HOB required to exclude weapons, even of LEOs?
If not, then it is just the policy of the business, to do or not, a whim.
By the same token, if this deputy isn't required to be armed at all times, then is he just chest thumping?
What is reality?
I'm very fond of reality when I get to see it. It's so....... real.
He is by regs supposed to be armed but while depts can and do discipline officer at time it just isn't reasonable to be armed 100%. 10 to 1 there is terminology like when possible, every effort, or something like that but I don't have access to their regs so......
The state of Texas doesn't recognize peace officers as being "off duty" for the purposes of limitation on carry. If the can carry on duty they can carry off. So yes it is just a house rule but they can boot you for dress code or bringing in food so yes they can boot off duty cops.
JALLEN wrote:In reviewing this thread, I don't see a claim by this officer that he is required to carry his weapon.
There is a question of TABC regs. Are LEOs bound by the liquor rules, blue, red etc?
What I am trying to figure out is what we are really dealing with.
Is HOB required to exclude weapons, even of LEOs?
If not, then it is just the policy of the business, to do or not, a whim.
By the same token, if this deputy isn't required to be armed at all times, then is he just chest thumping?
What is reality?
I'm very fond of reality when I get to see it. It's so....... real.
He is by regs supposed to be armed but while depts can and do discipline officer at time it just isn't reasonable to be armed 100%. 10 to 1 there is terminology like when possible, every effort, or something like that but I don't have access to their regs so......
The state of Texas doesn't recognize peace officers as being "off duty" for the purposes of limitation on carry. If the can carry on duty they can carry off. So yes it is just a house rule but they can boot you for dress code or bringing in food so yes they can boot off duty cops.
You don't have access to their "regs", yet you make claims that they are "supposed to be armed" by these "regs" that you have never read? Might as well claim they can be armed while intoxicated below .08 BAC according to their "regs". It's just as plausible.
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle." -Sir Winston Churchill
