NFL doesn't want off duty cops carrying

[Keith B]

(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.

The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).

No, you can't bar a peace officer period. That is the issue. If the person is a commisioned peace officer, even if they are off duty and they are trespassing, they cannot be charged with 30.05.

[Jaguar]

It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

(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.

Wow, I never read all of 30.05, now that I have I am surprised by it.

So what limits are there on Peace Officers that forbid them to enter or stay on property of another? It looks like the Third and Fouth Amendment took a holiday when they wrote this law.

The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).

Okay, I was reading the "and" at the end of (1) as an "or". Makes a little more sense now. So you can't say "no handguns allowed" and keep out a peace officer because he is armed, but you say "you are not allowed because I don't know you or I don't like you or I don't want you here" and they would have to leave or be in violation of 30.05.

Wait, now Keith is saying that is not correct...

[Keith B]

It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

(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.

Wow, I never read all of 30.05, now that I have I am surprised by it.

So what limits are there on Peace Officers that forbid them to enter or stay on property of another? It looks like the Third and Fouth Amendment took a holiday when they wrote this law.

The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).

Okay, I was reading the "and" at the end of (1) as an "or". Makes a little more sense now. So you can't say "no handguns allowed" and keep out a peace officer because he is armed, but you say "you are not allowed because I don't know you or I don't like you or I don't want you here" and they would have to leave or be in violation of 30.05.

Wait, now Keith is saying that is not correct...

What I am saying is, you can't ban an armed LEO because they are armed. So the problem is you can't say 'I don't want anyone armed here' and exclude a LEO for that reason, even when off duty. They can come in and would not be in violaiton of the penal code.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's also not going to work in Texas. Texas law prohibits them from barring armed peace officers. I don't like that law one bit, but it's the law.

Chas.

(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.

Wow, I never read all of 30.05, now that I have I am surprised by it.

So what limits are there on Peace Officers that forbid them to enter or stay on property of another? It looks like the Third and Fouth Amendment took a holiday when they wrote this law.

The way I read that, I can bar any specific person, regardless of whether they are LE. I just cannot generically say "armed LE not welcome". But I can say "Joe Smith get out", even if Joe is LE (unless he's there in an official capacity and acting under legal authority).

Correct. You can have and enforce a "no guns" policy against anyone and everyone, except a LEO, including an out-of-state LEO.

Yes, I know some people will argue that it's no big deal because you can simply give some other reason to bar someone. While this is true, 1) Texas law shouldn't put honest people in a position where they must lie to keep people out of their homes and other private property; and 2) most people have no idea that TPC §30.05 contains this limitation related to LEO's so they won't know the Legislature has forced them to lie if they don't want that person on their property.

Chas.

[texanjoker]

George Orwell hit the nail on the head. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

While people are upset about this perceived "privilege" as some call it in this thread, or as you refer to equality, I noticed on a different thread that is running that veterans and active duty under 21 can obtain a CHL. That "privilege' has caused other states to not off reciprocity with TX chls....., so LEO's are not the only one in TX with a "perceived privilege", and I don't see any LEO "privileges" harming CHL holders.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

George Orwell hit the nail on the head. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

While people are upset about this perceived "privilege" as some call it in this thread, or as you refer to equality, I noticed on a different thread that is running that veterans and active duty under 21 can obtain a CHL. That "privilege' has caused other states to not off reciprocity with TX chls....., so LEO's are not the only one in TX with a "perceived privilege", and I don't see any LEO "privileges" harming CHL holders.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh what a surprise -- you are defending the indefensible again solely because it applies to LEOs.

Your attempt to divert the discussion doesn't work, but since you decided to post, please give us your justification for not applying TPC §30.05 to off-duty LEOs. I can't wait to hear this.

Chas.

[texanjoker]

George Orwell hit the nail on the head. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

While people are upset about this perceived "privilege" as some call it in this thread, or as you refer to equality, I noticed on a different thread that is running that veterans and active duty under 21 can obtain a CHL. That "privilege' has caused other states to not off reciprocity with TX chls....., so LEO's are not the only one in TX with a "perceived privilege", and I don't see any LEO "privileges" harming CHL holders.

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh what a surprise -- you are defending the indefensible again solely because it applies to LEOs.

Your attempt to divert the discussion doesn't work, but since you decided to post, please give us your justification for not applying TPC §30.05 to off-duty LEOs. I can't wait to hear this.

Chas.

Not diverting anything and it's not a surprise that you state that, as that is the normal rhetoric in here. For me I go by facts and solid investigations vs. media hype and don't just jump on the band wagon. Let's be realistic, this discussion has turned into a case about chl holders not having a "privilege" as some call it that an leo has about where they can carry a gun. We read all the time in here that a CHL should be able to carry where a LEO can. I too agree with that, but that is not the issue here. Lets look at the big picture. If the public accepts places saying TRAINED off duty leo's can't carry, how can they possibly foresee a future with more CHL access? That isn't going to happen and they are chipping away our 2nd amendment right day by day. God forbid the Republicans hurt reelection chances with this budget fiasco. If the dems get control we are doomed.

This law quoted states that one cannot apply trespassing to leos merely because they are armed. Any business can refuse service to anybody for pretty much any reason so just because they are armed isn't going to be an issue. Look at it this way. This is similar to a 30.06 sign and a bad 30.06 sign. If a chl is carrying and caught under a bad sign, they are not breaking the law. If a leo is caught carrying at a nfl game, the law you posted, states they are not breaking the law for carrying. However in both cases I can see them asking the person carrying to leave, and in both cases one will have to do to the fact it is private property. If they refuse a leo will be called and asked to leave. They just can't be criminally charged. The flip side is that the agency that is called may then file a report with the off duty leo's agency and get him in trouble for some policy violation.

Here is the difference in how this topic is being talked about on various LEO forums and threads. Just like chl holders posting they won't support business that prohibit carrying, the leos are saying if they can't carry they just won't go to the games and save their money. They will write letters to complain to the nfl. If there are any incidents of an leo trying to 'force' their way in, I could see big city liberal departments passing an order prohibiting their leos from carrying at games if their specific state has a section like the one TX has to avoid any bad press.

[bayouhazard]

Any politician in this state who thinks that a Yankee LEO should have more rights than a Texan CHL is a carpetbagger at heart no matter what their birth certificate says.

[texanjoker]

Any politician in this state who thinks that a Yankee LEO should have more rights than a Texan CHL is a carpetbagger at heart no matter what their birth certificate says.

[howdy]

I think this solves it:

http://www.khou.com/sports/Texas-law-ov ... 29231.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[texanjoker]

I think this solves it:

http://www.khou.com/sports/Texas-law-ov ... 29231.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would not want to "check in" with anybody. Too much big brother there and it makes you a target if something does go down. The Association president hit it with concealed. We all carry concealed and nobody should no. That would not be a good place to "print" as some talk about in this forum.

I still see a private entity as being able to refuse service to anybody for any reason. They just can't charge one for trespassing. This should/could be interesting if the NFL tries to fight it or you get an overzealous security guard.

[E.Marquez]

I think it's simple..
Huston, Dallas tells the NFL if the policy stands, that's fine. Officers are forbidden from working at those property's or as subcontractor to those property owners either in contracts though the city or off duty employment. Further, City police will no longer respond to calls for assistance from law enforcement on those privet property areas without a specific request to the senior administrator on duty at the department at the time of request. Additionally a TCLEOSE certified security guard and NFL corporate lawyer are present on scene and with the person to be contacted at the time of the request.
Lastly, if the NFL request law enforcement on to privet property, a User Request fee shall be charged the property owners.....

OR.. Those two city managers contract with the NFL to allow off duty officers or on duty overtime officers work there but as part of the contract.. the NFL must remove the policy for Texas... no agreement, no LEO will be allowed on or off duty to work for the NFL ..


ya, ya , ya I know, likely none of that is legal... but hey, so what... the policy forbidding LEOS in TX from entering the property is not legal either.

[JALLEN]

There is simply too much money involved in the NFL and its activities to resist anything it dreams up to desire. If the NFL can get referees to throw pink flags, if they can get the owners to require all persons entering the stadium on game day to use a clear bag of a certain size and nothing else, if the NFL can basically take over a city in the run up to Super Bowl, including all airports in the area, it can do anything. Be glad it hasn't occurred to the NFL to require security officers to wear pink camo. Neither a city nor the state can expect to enforce its law contrary to NFL wishes.

The NFL has barred San Diego from hosting any more Super Bowls until it gets a new stadium, which the Spanos (Charger owners) family wants but is demanding a $600 million slopping at the public trough.

These are among the considerations which have led many in San Diego to holler "Go, Chargers! Go! and take the Padres with ya!"

[Tic Tac]

It's funny how some people are willing to enforce a rule until that rule applies to them.

There's a word for that.

[rbwhatever1]

It's funny how some people are willing to enforce a rule until that rule applies to them.

There's a word for that.

Politician?