Texas soldier faces legal battle over gun in hospitial

[Slipknot]

The link to the Bell County Clerk records request is here:
http://www.bellcountytx.com/county_gove ... 08__2_.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I stopped by and the clerk told me that the next hearing is on January 28 at 0900. It looks like there has been several hearings in the past couple of months related to discovery and reduction of bond.

[harrycallahan]

I have followed this just bit, reading here in the forum about this soldier. How was he charged in the first place under 30.06 if it is true that the hospital isn't posted? I can understand the intoxication charge added later, because that statute is both specific and purposely vague. There is much that is confusing and scary at the same time about this issue. Carry at a hospital is allowed, right? Unless posted? If this is indeed an issue of anti gun bias, I hope he prevails.

[E.Marquez]

I have followed this just bit, reading here in the forum about this soldier. How was he charged in the first place under 30.06 if it is true that the hospital isn't posted? I can understand the intoxication charge added later, because that statute is both specific and purposely vague. There is much that is confusing and scary at the same time about this issue. Carry at a hospital is allowed, right? Unless posted? If this is indeed an issue of anti gun bias, I hope he prevails.

If you read though the whole thread,, you'll find that what appears to have happened is an unsupportable charge was originally made (ie violation of 30.06, as hospitals are no longer off limits unless posted, and this one was not posted) when that was pointed out to that ADA, that charge was dropped and amended to what he faces now.

[harrycallahan]

I have followed this just bit, reading here in the forum about this soldier. How was he charged in the first place under 30.06 if it is true that the hospital isn't posted? I can understand the intoxication charge added later, because that statute is both specific and purposely vague. There is much that is confusing and scary at the same time about this issue. Carry at a hospital is allowed, right? Unless posted? If this is indeed an issue of anti gun bias, I hope he prevails.

If you read though the whole thread,, you'll find that what appears to have happened is an unsupportable charge was originally made (ie violation of 30.06, as hospitals are no longer off limits unless posted, and this one was not posted) when that was pointed out to that ADA, that charge was dropped and amended to what he faces now.

The soldier was arrested and charged for an offense that did not exist at the time, and later the charge amended to reflect intoxication...thereby allowing this DA to continue harassing this man? Wow, this is very disturbing to me. I've seen posts that claim the charge is still UCW by a lic CHL, so I think there is still some misinformation out there. I can't speak for the first charge, but I can say this is why I'd never carry on the day that I drink. The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed. Sad. I pray he is victorious.

[E.Marquez]

I've seen posts that claim the charge is still UCW by a lic CHL, so I think there is still some misinformation out there. .

What misinformation?
Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder (TPC 46.035) covers both a charges

TPC 43.065
in part

(b) (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(6)(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Of course in this case (b)(4) does not apply as the hospital was not posted IAW TPC 30.06

But still the point is.. a charge of either violation of 46.035 (b)(4) or (6)(d) would still be listed as far as I have seen in researching dockets for several weeks now as Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder

[Keith B]

.....The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed....

I beg to differ. While there are some officers that may not be friendly to a person carrying, not all are that way. There are plenty that are Pro-CHL. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and not even having one drink while carrying, that is bordering on being extra cautious, but believeing every police officer is out to get you is not accurate and on this forum borders on LEO bashing.

[E.Marquez]

.....The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed....

I beg to differ. While there are some officers that may not be friendly to a person carrying, not all are that way. There are plenty that are Pro-CHL. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and not even having one drink while carrying, that is bordering on being extra cautious, but believeing every police officer is out to get you is not accurate and on this forum borders on LEO bashing.

Borders?

Anyway..
No news is wierd news on this one..
I'll call Mr Glass in the morning ..... just because.

[harrycallahan]

I've seen posts that claim the charge is still UCW by a lic CHL, so I think there is still some misinformation out there. .

What misinformation?
Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder (TPC 43.065) covers both a charges

TPC 43.065
in part

(b) (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(6)(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.

Of course in this case (b)(4) does not apply as the hospital was not posted IAW TPC 30.06

But still the point is.. a charge of either violation of 43.065 (b)(4) or (6)(d) would still be listed as far as I have seen in researching dockets for several weeks now as Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder

I did not know that. I stand corrected. Another forum I read as still listing the charge as UCW. Now I know why. Thanks.

[harrycallahan]

.....The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed....

I beg to differ. While there are some officers that may not be friendly to a person carrying, not all are that way. There are plenty that are Pro-CHL. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and not even having one drink while carrying, that is bordering on being extra cautious, but believeing every police officer is out to get you is not accurate and on this forum borders on LEO bashing.

You are saying things straight from your thoughts and not mine, so please don't write about me as if you know mine. So I am respectfully asking to back off. You went of the charts with your paranoia rant. Let me explain. A parent will tell you, I'm not my child's friend, I'm their parent, first and foremost. What I am saying is this, a police officer is not your friend, he is an investigator and as such he is doing a job. I said nothing about not respecting the uniform, job or person. I presume we have a U.S. soldier who, thinking this guys my friend so Ill talk to him, gave him information that he need not give thereby giving rise to this intoxication charge that I think we all agree is now a lame attempt for the officer and DA to save face. The litmus test for my argument. Simple. Had an attorney been present during the initial interview we wouldn't be having this discussion now. My best advice, be your own attorney until they real one arrives.

[Keith B]

.....The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such. The officer was trolling for information and this poor guy gave it to him. I can remember a day when you could speak with a police officer, but that day has passed....

I beg to differ. While there are some officers that may not be friendly to a person carrying, not all are that way. There are plenty that are Pro-CHL. There is nothing wrong with being cautious and not even having one drink while carrying, that is bordering on being extra cautious, but believeing every police officer is out to get you is not accurate and on this forum borders on LEO bashing.

You are saying things straight from your thoughts and not mine, so please don't write about me as if you know mine. So I am respectfully asking to back off. You went of the charts with your paranoia rant. Let me explain. A parent will tell you, I'm not my child's friend, I'm their parent, first and foremost. What I am saying is this, a police officer is not your friend, he is an investigator and as such he is doing a job. I said nothing about not respecting the uniform, job or person. I presume we have a U.S. soldier who, thinking this guys my friend so Ill talk to him, gave him information that he need not give thereby giving rise to this intoxication charge that I think we all agree is now a lame attempt for the officer and DA to save face. The litmus test for my argument. Simple. Had an attorney been present during the initial interview we wouldn't be having this discussion now. My best advice, be your own attorney until they real one arrives.

I remember a day when you could speak to a police officer, but that day has passed. Your words. This was easliy interpreted as you don't trust police. Now that you have clarified your alleged intent, I will partially agree with you. However, if we loose all trust for those that are in the position to try and help protect us, then we will fall into the mode of believing they are there to harm us, are not there for our own good and we will start believing they are the enemy. Not healthy when dealing with them. There are times to talk to them, and times to shut up. What this guy did or didn't do in talking to the officer we don't know for sure, but this sounds more like a case of a DA trying to make a name for himself than the officer changing things up.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The police are not our friends and should not be treated as such.

Stop.

Chas.

9. Blatant, global, or rampant law enforcement bashing is prohibited. Discussions of specific identifiable events presented factually are fine.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You are saying things straight from your thoughts and not mine, so please don't write about me as if you know mine. So I am respectfully asking to back off. You went of the charts with your paranoia rant.

You aren't long for the Forum with this attitude. This is your last warning and the only reason I'm making it public is because you decided to publicly attack a Member who respectfully disagreed with your blatant law enforcement bashing in violation of Forum rules.

If you want to leave, then come back with a response in keeping with the stuff you've posted already. Between your username and Avatar, I think I see the problem.

Chas.

[JKTex]

Well, it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

What we know:
1. The police responded to the home (along with medical personnel) for an Alcohol related event.
2. The individual in question admitted that he had at some point earlier consumed Alcohol.
3. The arresting officer stated that he smelled Alcohol on the breath of the individual in question.
4. There is no indication (from the information provided) that any tests were conducted to determine a blood Alcohol content level.
5. The individual is being charged with carry while intoxicated even though apparently no tests were conducted. These tests are typically required in order to prove intoxication for other offenses such as DWI.

So, we may finally have case law that more clearly defines intoxicated/impaired as it applies to CHL. If, as some have stated, Intoxicated carries the same legal meaning for CHL as it does for DWI (.08 I think) then this should be an open and shut case.
The flip side of the coin is the possibility that the court rules that what we have been told by many instructors is in fact correct - that the consumption of any alcohol can constitute an offense.

Well alcohol would explain the arrest. Kind of changes things if it's true.

Yes, IF that's what the initial arrest was, not an amended charge when they realized they didn't have a case based on the initial charge. That said, while the officer telling him not to bring his gun to the hospital means nothing more than a suggestion, it's very possible the LEO did so because he felt Sampson had drank too much. There's no indication of that, and if that were the case, you'd think that would have been the charge up front. The case ought to be kicked to the curb, and the next step is what I usually don't support, but a law suit naming the officer and department for a false (initial charge) arrest (as the amended drinking while carrying should be trashed whether it was true or not)....

Hopefully that amended charge can't stand on it's own. If it can, he's toast as they don't need a test beyond the officers opinion that he had too much to drink to be carrying.

Unfortunately, it kind of smells like the Officer may have given him a break at the house, and that was his only freebee.

[E.Marquez]

Hopefully that amended charge can't stand on it's own. If it can, he's toast as they don't need a test beyond the officers opinion that he had too much to drink to be carrying.

Unfortunately, it kind of smells like the Officer may have given him a break at the house, and that was his only freebee.

If that was the case ??

What of his not being charged for DUI? (he drove to the Hosp, this was seen and known by several officers)
If he was observed at the house as intoxicated, given a break...yet the officer allowed him to drive, then failed to charge him with DUI after he drove.. what of that?

Conversely..

If the officer did not feel he was impaired to drive, did not charge him with DUI for driving.. is that not in conflict with a later charge of Intoxication in regards to unlawful carry at the Hosp?

IANAL.. so it’s likely I do not understand all the twists and turns such a charge or lack thereof can have.. But I see anomalies in this case I cannot justify in my one mind.

[JKTex]

Hopefully that amended charge can't stand on it's own. If it can, he's toast as they don't need a test beyond the officers opinion that he had too much to drink to be carrying.

Unfortunately, it kind of smells like the Officer may have given him a break at the house, and that was his only freebee.

If that was the case ??

What of his not being charged for DUI? (he drove to the Hosp, this was seen and known by several officers)
If he was observed at the house as intoxicated, given a break...yet the officer allowed him to drive, then failed to charge him with DUI after he drove.. what of that?

Conversely..

If the officer did not feel he was impaired to drive, did not charge him with DUI for driving.. is that not in conflict with a later charge of Intoxication in regards to unlawful carry at the Hosp?

IANAL.. so it’s likely I do not understand all the twists and turns such a charge or lack thereof can have.. But I see anomalies in this case I cannot justify in my one mind.

At this point we're speculating for the most part, but if indeed he did drive, did they see him drive? If not, it's a non-issue. However, if they realized the first charge was not good (arrested for that which is not illegal) I believe the amended charge is an easy one for them because they don't need anything more than the Officers opinion that he was impaired to a point he felt he would be a danger to himself or others.

If that's the case, then I hope in legal speak, the charge can't stick if the original was bogus because at that point they have the stink on them that smells like they were going to come up with anything they could to make the arrest seem valid.

Again though, we don't know near enough of the facts.