Are we actually still in violation of 30.06 at gun shows?

[Ameer]

My wife and I looked into sponsoring a gun show in SE Texas. In our research on the requirements that were necessary to stay within the law we were told (dont remember by who, but think it was the BATFE) that ALL guns had to be unloaded. So don't blame the show promoters for making you "disarm" before you enter the gun shows. Their hands are tied too.

If that's true, all the Texas cops who carry loaded guns at Texas gun shows are breaking the law.

I think you got very bad advice, probably from someone who is anti or ignorant. Maybe both.

[srothstein]

Charles, I was thinking of the recent gun show in Allen and as Jamisjocky has stated, is not a LEO actually in violation of the law by enforcing no carry on these non-privately owned properties, and would this not mean the officer is not in the lawful execution of his/her duties? If this were the case, would a class action suit, basically stopping the illegal action under cover of authority by officers not be justifiable?

I don't think the officer is in violation of the law by asking you to check the guns and zip tie them. There is no law forbidding the officer from stopping you and asking you to comply with the promoter's wishes. If you pointed out the law to him and he insisted on it, he might be but I am still not sure. To me, the only way I would be confident the officer was violating the law would be if he arrested someone for violating 30.06 on government owned property. Then he could be charged with violating their civil rights under color of law.

And given the lack of any case law on the subject, I could not even be positive even then. The officer will have some immunity until the point is settled law. I agree that I read the statute as pretty settled law, but that is my opinion and not the court's. Obviously we still have some attorneys out there that think otherwise than what I do.

[C-dub]

Does an officer have to arrest someone to violate their Constitutional rights? By forcing me to disarm under these circumstances, wouldn't an officer be denying me my second amendment rights and the privilege granted to me by the state?

[srothstein]

I don't think the officer forcing you to disarm would be seen by the courts as infringing on your 2A rights. If you could prove there was a threat to your safety there that he did not allow you to protect yourself from, it might be. Just as barring your entry to the property improperly might be seen as violating your 1A rights to freedom of association or freedom of expression, but I am not sure the courts would see it that way.

But it is clear that an arrest where you did not violate the law is a violation of your civil rights. The only question is if the law is clear and settled in that area. SCOTUS has generally said that officers have immunity for making an arrest in the gray areas that is later shown to be wrong. When you think about it, this is a reasonable attitude that lets a cop work when the laws are not as clear as we would like. It does allow for some abuse (not intentional abuse though, that would not hold up that far) and there might be a better way to do it, but I am not sure what it would be.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I was thinking of the recent gun show in Allen and as Jamisjocky has stated, is not a LEO actually in violation of the law by enforcing no carry on these non-privately owned properties, and would this not mean the officer is not in the lawful execution of his/her duties? If this were the case, would a class action suit, basically stopping the illegal action under cover of authority by officers not be justifiable?

I don't think the officer is in violation of the law by asking you to check the guns and zip tie them. There is no law forbidding the officer from stopping you and asking you to comply with the promoter's wishes. If you pointed out the law to him and he insisted on it, he might be but I am still not sure. To me, the only way I would be confident the officer was violating the law would be if he arrested someone for violating 30.06 on government owned property. Then he could be charged with violating their civil rights under color of law.

And given the lack of any case law on the subject, I could not even be positive even then. The officer will have some immunity until the point is settled law. I agree that I read the statute as pretty settled law, but that is my opinion and not the court's. Obviously we still have some attorneys out there that think otherwise than what I do.

Chas.

[Pyrat]

Ok, then what would prevent a city from enforcing a similar ban anywhere it had jurisdiction?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Ok, then what would prevent a city from enforcing a similar ban anywhere it had jurisdiction?

As Stephen said, it's not unlawful for an officer to ASK you to comply. But if he arrests you for that which is not illegal, he has a potential problem with a §1983 violation. It really is a situation where we're waiting to see who blinks first; the CHL or the LEO.

There's another factor to consider. Even if an arrest is made and the LEO and agency wins in a §1983 lawsuit, that only works once. From then on, it would not be possible to make a good faith arrest under that fact pattern, so beating the §1983 lawsuit again would be difficult.

Chas.

[Pyrat]

There's another factor to consider. Even if an arrest is made and the LEO and agency wins in a §1983 lawsuit, that only works once. From then on, it would not be possible to make a good faith arrest under that fact pattern, so beating the §1983 lawsuit again would be difficult.

Chas, this kind of confuses me. Wouldn't a finding for the LEO/agency constitute case law and make any following action more easily defensible? It would seem if you, the citizen CHL holder, lost such a case you would need to go to an appellate court and argue the point of law, which is where it would seem to me that this would actually get sorted out. My apologies, I am not all that familiar with civil proceedings.

[shawn]

i was also at a recent gun show in allen. I knew they would be posted so I unloaded in the car and had my gun inspected at the inspection table. I asked him if I should just carry it out in the open or what. He said, now that we inspected and zipped tied it, you can do what ever you want. I thought open carry was illegal as well, so I didn't know what to do. I almost asked one of the cops there but then figured I was at a gun show so it probably didn't matter.

[jframe.38]

I think that this is an outstanding conversation.

I normally do not attend gun shows for precisely this reason. I do not wish to pay money to go to a place that is posted. I do not want to disarm and I do not want to be come the test case for 30.06 case law. While I think that a gun show has no right to post as it is on government owned property, I am not brave enough to become the test case. I think that the signage is legally meaningless, but I have no desire to risk arrest and staggering legal bills to prove a matter of law.

I did go to the December gun show though. I did not carry. If I were to, I would keep it extremely well concealed.

[Beiruty]

When disarmed and carrying unholstered zip-tied handgun, yoou aren't carrying under the authority of your CHL. You are being engaged in sporting related activity ( shopping or seeling, or just looking around) in gun show.

[juggernaut]

When disarmed and carrying unholstered zip-tied handgun, yoou aren't carrying under the authority of your CHL. You are being engaged in sporting related activity ( shopping or seeling, or just looking around) in gun show.

Neither 46.02 nor 46.15 make a distinction between loaded and unloaded handguns. If you're right, then it's legal to load your handgun right after you enter, in full view of the rental cops working the door. More importantly, if you're not carrying under the authority of the CHL law, then you can walk right past the 30.06 sign without disarming, the same as the police officers shopping at the gun show.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There's another factor to consider. Even if an arrest is made and the LEO and agency wins in a §1983 lawsuit, that only works once. From then on, it would not be possible to make a good faith arrest under that fact pattern, so beating the §1983 lawsuit again would be difficult.

Chas, this kind of confuses me. Wouldn't a finding for the LEO/agency constitute case law and make any following action more easily defensible? It would seem if you, the citizen CHL holder, lost such a case you would need to go to an appellate court and argue the point of law, which is where it would seem to me that this would actually get sorted out. My apologies, I am not all that familiar with civil proceedings.

If an officer arrests someone for something that is not unlawful, he and his department can avoid liability in a §1983 lawsuit if it can be shown that the arrest was made in good faith. That is, the officer could reasonably believe that the defendant violated the law. However, as a result of the lawsuit, the officer, his agency, and pretty much everyone else in that appellate court jurisdiction would know that act made the basis of the arrest is not unlawful, so no one could later make a good faith arrest. It's an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" situation for law enforcement. Before someone sued, it was reasonable to believe the act was unlawful; after the person arrested sued and proved it was not unlawful, "everyone knows."

Chas.

[Pyrat]

If an officer arrests someone for something that is not unlawful, he and his department can avoid liability in a §1983 lawsuit if it can be shown that the arrest was made in good faith. That is, the officer could reasonably believe that the defendant violated the law. However, as a result of the lawsuit, the officer, his agency, and pretty much everyone else in that appellate court jurisdiction would know that act made the basis of the arrest is not unlawful, so no one could later make a good faith arrest. It's an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" situation for law enforcement. Before someone sued, it was reasonable to believe the act was unlawful; after the person arrested sued and proved it was not unlawful, "everyone knows."

Interesting. It would seem that if the CHL holder advised the officer at the time of 30.06(e) the officer would have difficulty claiming a good faith arrest under §1983.

This reminds me of the anchoring rights battle in Florida. In a nutshell municipalities in Florida have tried to restrict the amount of time a vessel can anchor in waters claimed by the jurisdiction. Recently Florida passed state laws which restrict or eliminate municipalities ability to do this. However, some municipalities still attempt to force vessels anchored in these claimed waters to move. It's a bit more complicated, but for our purposes here this definition will suffice. BoatUS (the boat version of the NRA) has produced a document with the appropriate sections of the law and examples of relevant court cases which it advises boaters to print out and carry with them in order to show to local officers. If the officers proceed to force you to move, you should comply with the order, but record all related information (names, jurisdiction, vessel hull number and other identification as well as the time date and circumstances). This information can be provided to the BoatUS Government Affairs Office which actively pursues these cases. The result has been a fairly significant reduction in these attempts by local jurisdictions to bypass state law.

This anchoring thing in Florida is a big deal considering the number of vessels which routinely transit Florida waters going to and from the Caribbean the Gulf of Mexico and South America so there are huge numbers of people involved. The question here is do we as CHL holders consider the violation of TPC 30.06(e) significant enough to be pursued? Do we have the body count to persuade an organization like NRA TFC or TSRA or some friendly politician to pick up the ball and run with it?

[jamisjockey]

Not to totally hijack the thread, but what kind of boat do you have?