TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="treadlightly"]Add Coryell county to the list - http://www.kwtx.com/content/news/Gatesv ... 76121.html

But here's what really bugs me about this sort of thing, beyond the obvious.

If my defense attorney shared offices with the judge and kept his records in spaces controlled by the judge's policies, I would have no doubt the prosecutor would raise all kinds of explosive ex parte objections that would stick like glue.

I would like to think the judge would be censured or impeached and the defense attorney disbarred.

But when I raise this issue the other way around, questioning the ex parte purity of a prosecutor billeted in what amounts to the judge's offices, it's just crazy old me raising straw arguments. Again.

Confusing, this world of ours. I keep looking for logic and that clouds my understanding.[/qu

IANAL I am always curious why official oppression doesn't apply to the individual who use their office to violate laws and usurp the rights of citizens.

" Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;

(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; "
Does the law not apply to politicians who use their office do anything they want, even when it's not legal?

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
I do not see the "loophole". It's just so.done trying to skirt the law. It's especially egregious when they use cops to do their dirty work.

Yes it is an attempt to skirt the law, that is basically the definition of a loophole. They figured out a way to effectively disarm people without taking away or preventing the carrying of a gun. It is not the equivalent to a 30.06 in that there is no LEGAL consequence to violating a house rule except expulsion. In the case of 30.06 there is such a consequence and in cases like these it is effectively the Government lying about the law.

Then there is the secondary issue of there being a real safety concern with a very few people at gun shows. There would be the one guy who carried concealed and whips out his gun to try a holster or mag, or to do a trade. If there is the slightest chance a person's gun would be handled at all at a show then it needs to be made safe and I find myself less than confident about all gun show attendees. This is not an endorsement just an acknowledgement of a reasonable concern.

Hogwash!! A loophole is legal and skirting the law and violating the law is not legal. You are wrong and you will never admit it.

You can read the rest on my prior comment if you want as I am done playing your game.

I'm with you mojo. Do you want to join me in a conversation with a barbed wire support device? (BTW mojo -no response required )

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:

I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

It's the law not logic that we are dealing with here. This is in no way covered by SB273 that I can see. It's a loophole. Courts are not supposed to close loopholes. SB273 covers carrying the gun and and specifically 30.06 warnings. It says nothing about ammo. Now violating the house rule would mean nothing and all they could do is ask you to leave if caught, no way to legally arrest or any legal consequence. This isn't a 30.06 issue. 30.06 has legal consequences on violation. This, and your school thing, doesn't.

What you are stating it's not the intent of laws allowing CHL for a weapon to be loaded. Thus any government entity can make you unload the weapon through enforcement by a LEO via this loophole.

mojo84 wrote:Is it a lawful order for them to try to enforce house rules are are not legally enforcable in the first place?

What about confiscating ammo when no law was broken?

Hopefully the AG will decide. I don't want to drift off track here, but I have to ask the following question. If a government entity is fined for violating SB273 and continually repeats the same violation at what point does it become official oppression for the person/s ordering it?

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

Under the directions of a peace office at the entry table? I doubt it. And the fact that it would contradict doesn't automatically invalidate anything.

You may be correct if directed by a peace officer. I am missing the point of the second statement.[/quote]

The fact that you can't unload without displaying doesn't automatically render the requirement to unload invalid or actionable. Additionally by the time it could get to court the "illegal" display issue will no longer be, well, illegal. Not really a winner of an argument IMO. While it seems clearly against the intention of the new law I see nothing that would violate the actual language of the law.[/quote]


I guess we'll just have to disagree. The building is owned by the City of Pasadena. Doesn't matter what venue is renting the building it can not be made off limits to CHL by any of the 30.06 notification methods, i.e. verbal, written or signage notification per SB273. Having police force CHL holders unloading their weapons is oxymoronic to the intent of being able to carry a concealed weapon since it's rendered useless. It may even be illegal, unless the police are going to claim it's for officer safety; but that horse may not trot, since they are specifically enforcing the illegal notice on the ticket and signage. Say a school puts up a sign to prevent a CHL from having their weapon loaded while in the parking lot and hires police to enforce it. Are you Ok with that? In my humble non-lawyer opinion Pasadena will lose this battle.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

I wrote a letter to Mayor Johnny Isbel of Pasadena requesting that he disallow the posting of 30.06 signs at the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. There was no 30.06 sign there today.

There were two signs, one containing legal mumbo-jumbo about your ticket to enter was a license granted on the condition that you do not carry a loaded weapon inside. The other sign stated flatly that loaded weapons were prohibited. There was a uniformed police officer there enforcing the ban.

I took photos of the signs. The attorney general will have copies tomorrow, along with my official complaint.

If they allow you to enter and are just requiring you to unload I don't see that as violating the actual language of the law. The spirit maybe but..........

if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

Under the directions of a peace office at the entry table? I doubt it. And the fact that it would contradict doesn't automatically invalidate anything.

You may be correct if directed by a peace officer. I am missing the point of the second statement.

EEllis wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

I wrote a letter to Mayor Johnny Isbel of Pasadena requesting that he disallow the posting of 30.06 signs at the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. There was no 30.06 sign there today.

There were two signs, one containing legal mumbo-jumbo about your ticket to enter was a license granted on the condition that you do not carry a loaded weapon inside. The other sign stated flatly that loaded weapons were prohibited. There was a uniformed police officer there enforcing the ban.

I took photos of the signs. The attorney general will have copies tomorrow, along with my official complaint.

If they allow you to enter and are just requiring you to unload I don't see that as violating the actual language of the law. The spirit maybe but..........

if a CHL holder unloads their weapon in public that would require exposing it. That's currently a violation.

dhoobler wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

I wrote a letter to Mayor Johnny Isbel of Pasadena requesting that he disallow the posting of 30.06 signs at the Pasadena Convention Center during gun shows. There was no 30.06 sign there today.

There were two signs, one containing legal mumbo-jumbo about your ticket to enter was a license granted on the condition that you do not carry a loaded weapon inside. The other sign stated flatly that loaded weapons were prohibited. There was a uniformed police officer there enforcing the ban.

I took photos of the signs. The attorney general will have copies tomorrow, along with my official complaint.

Glad you were there to do that. I wasn't able to go yesterday and thought I'd go after church today, but my wife reminded me we were meeting some of our Sunday School members for lunch. SB273 as I read it states any attempt to disallow CHL is prohibited, not just 30.06 signage.

Sec. A 411.209.AA WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUNLICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

Vol Texan wrote:

bigred90gt wrote:I didn't read 60 pages to see if
It was mentioned, but the Houston gun show (at the George R Brown convention center) and the Pasadena Gun Show (Pasadena convention center) have both been posted every time I've gone. Both buildings are owned by the city, and should not be posted. Last time I went to the houston show, they actually had an officer at the door announcing the sign telling everyone that even if you are licensed you can't carry in there and will be arrested if caught. It has been a few years since I went to one, so not sure if they're still posted.

Not anymore at the GRB: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=77817#p988534

I going to try to attend the Pasadena Gun Show Saturday. I'll post what I see there if I make it.

ET-Ret wrote:I took a person to apply for food stamps in Tarrant County 4/2/2014. There is strange looking 30.06 sign at the door and I do not believe any court or police activites
are going on in the Building. When you go in you are met with a Rental Guard service which said you must be Id to go in the office where they take computer applications
I handed him a chl for ID and he took it without question. I asked him about the sign and found he did not seem to understand what it was or that he cares They are not armed and
could not speak good English. I hope someone can give me some info because my understanding is the sign is not Legal.
Tarrant county has a lot of different office in the general area. 1501 Circle Dr Ft Worth. 76119
Thanks ET-ret

Looking up the address there are no courts in the location. It's listed as: Health and Human Services State Office Building. There are many State and County offices in myriad building on Circle Drive. The County Sheriff Laundry and a Warehouse are there. As far as I determine they all fall under section (e) of 30.06 It's not illegal to post a 30.06 sign, but technically there would be no legal basis for enforcement. BUT!!!! This theory has yet to be tested in a court as far as I know. IANAL (no legal advice intended)

below copied from Resource Connection of Tarrant County http://www.tarrantcounty.com/tc_resourc ... ourceNav=|


Health & Human Services State Office Building
Texas Health and Human Services Commission 817-321-8000
Department of Assistive Rehabilitative Services (DARS) 817-321-8500
Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS) 817-321-8600
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs 817-321-8700
Texas Star Program - MAXIMUS 817-321-8024
Texas Commission on Fire Protection 817-531-8600

Had a catfish lunch at the Pasadena Rotary Fish Fry at the rodeo grounds today and since it's adjacent to the Pasadena Convention Center we decided to visit the High Caliber Gun Show being held there this weekend. The last time I attended the venue it was 30.06 posted and they had uniformed LEO's accosting patrons inside. The one that questioned me was not only ignorant of the statutes, but quite arrogant. That's why I haven't been to any shows there for quite some time. Anyway, they still have the signage, but no officers questioning patrons as they entered. I left my CCW and extra mag in the car to avoid any issues like my previous encounter. I didn't see a lot of .22 LR, but what I saw was ridiculously priced. .22 WMR was $29.95/50.

jbarn wrote:

puma guy wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Fibonacci wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Fibonacci wrote:The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

You quote 30.05 as a defense to trespassing under 30.06, but since 30.06 was passed it seems to me that's moot. There is no trespass on government property for a CHL per 30.06 exceptions. That would be like having a law that says the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 30 mph along with some language that says it's a defense to prosecution,etc. But then subsequent statutes make an exception for that specific area that no longer allows the speed limit to be reduced. Someone decides to leave the 30 MPH sign up and you are cited for exceeding it. The new statute negates the need for any "defense to prosecution" originally set forth, since it's unenforceable per the new code. IANAL, but I doubt an attorney would use the language in 30.05 to defend a charge of trespass on government property that's a exception under 30.06, but rather would cite the exceptions in 30.06.
30.06. at allow e are originally specified at 30.06 making tand make it 40 mph. with

I don't know what speed limits have to do with anything. ...He asked if one could trespass on "public property", and one certainly can.

Sorry you don't understand it's just an analogy. I never disputed that one could trespass on public property. I was addressing your statement that 30.05 language was a defense for CHL trespass. There can be no CHL trespass at the Lufkin Library because 30.06 makes the exception, therefore 30.05 "defense to prosecution" language doesn't apply. IMHO. As in my hypothetical that a speed limit prohibited by exception in a statute is unenforceable.

jbarn wrote:

Fibonacci wrote:

jbarn wrote:

Fibonacci wrote:The Kurth Library in Lufkin has text on the door prohibiting firearms and the text refers to section 30.05! It does not include the 30.06 language.

Is it even possible, by definition, to trespass on public property?

Of course it is.

However, it is a defense under 30.05 if the reason for the prohibited entry was carry under a CHL

"Of course it is."

It seems to me a lot less certain than you state. The first paragraph of 30.05 Criminal Trespass talks in specific language about being on the property of another. How can public property be property of another?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent ........

You don't own the public property. The courts have long interpreted that the governing bodies are in control of the property. This is long held.

You quote 30.05 as a defense to trespassing under 30.06, but since 30.06 was passed it seems to me that's moot. There is no trespass on government property for a CHL per 30.06 exceptions. That would be like having a law that says the maximum speed limit can be reduced to 30 mph along with some language that says it's a defense to prosecution,etc. But then subsequent statutes make an exception for that specific area that no longer allows the speed limit to be reduced. Someone decides to leave the 30 MPH sign up and you are cited for exceeding it. The new statute negates the need for any "defense to prosecution" originally set forth, since it's unenforceable per the new code. IANAL, but I doubt an attorney would use the language in 30.05 to defend a charge of trespass on government property that's a exception under 30.06, but rather would cite the exceptions in 30.06.
30.06. at allow e are originally specified at 30.06 making tand make it 40 mph. with

unicyclist wrote:I just got this back from the AG

This e-mail is in response to your public information request to the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”), received by the OAG on February 13, 2014. A copy of your request follows this e-mail.

The OAG has reviewed its files, and the OAG has no information responsive to your request.

I called GCWDA and asked to speak to their open records officer. What a fun call (no sarcasm). Ms Love is going to retire in a few days, and didn't care what she said anymore. To sum up the phone call...
"You must have a vendetta" (In response to my success with the city of Webster, Friendswood, and Galveston County.
"Just leave it in the car" (I love debating and I think she did to, which made this phone call fun.
"I wouldn't feel safe" (I had more fun with this)

She told me to email her with all of the details of our phone call, with quoted penal code, and she would personally look it up and get back to be before her last day.
She also asked if I talked with Keith Hardcastle about the AG returning my email. I told her that I believe he 1)Didn't do it, or 2)Asked the wrong question (if he could ban employees)

Sounds like you had a good time! I received no response, but since I went through the campaign website I'll let it go. Looking forward to hearing what she says in her email. Keep up the good work

Who ever Keith Hardcastle is and what position he may holds GCWDA I seriously doubt he contacted the AG and if he did and the AG said it was legal to post the AG would be ignoring the law since Gulf Coast is a political subdivision as stated in their annual reports.
Their General Counsel is Olson and Olson

Quoted from GCWDA 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (revised 02/13/2013)
Profile of the Authority
The Authority was created in 1969 by the Texas Legislature as a political subdivision of the State of Texas and is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. The Authority provides services to assist governments and industries in managing their pollution control needs. These services include the operation of waste treatment facilities; technical assistance and information programs; involvement in
community environmental projects; and pollution control and private activity bond financing of projects.


The Board has a very strange make up. A funeral director to a rice farmer in Beaumont even though there are no GCWDA facilities in Beaumont??? I saw only one member with environment background and many have been members very long time, Good old boy???? All are political appointees so you'd be wasting your time contacting any of them IMHO. I didn't see Hardcastle as Director of HR it was a woman named Rhea Hernandez reporting directly to the General Manager Ricky Clifton. This is per the latest (2012) CAFR so perhaps he replaced her.
Maybe we should inquire of the AG : Since I couldn't find an email for the AG I made an inquiry via his election website and requested a response mentioning the fact there are potentially 14000+ individuals interested in his answer.