HB 1075 - Exempts LEO's from "No gun" signs

The Legislative Session is over - here are the results?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

HB 1075 - Exempts LEO's from "No gun" signs

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:24 pm

This isn't CHL related, but interesting nonetheless.

HB 1075 (Menendez) would exempt LEO's from Texas trespass laws set out in Penal Code Section 30.05, if the sole basis for their exclusion is the carrying of a firearm or other weapon. This applies to LEO's whether they are on duty or off duty.

The bottom line is no property owner, including homeowners, will be able to exclude any LEO from coming onto or into their private property with a gun. I have several friends who are active or retired LEO's, as well as many CHL holders, and everyone is welcome in my home with their pistolas. However, I find this bill disturbing, as it applies to off duty carry as well.

Regards,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12978
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby Lindy » Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:19 pm

Perhaps my reasoning is archaic, but I think that implicit in the concept of private property is that the owner should generally be able to forbid anyone to enter his property for any reason, however arbitrary. I don't think LEOs, except on official business, should be exempt from that reasoning.
"Amateurs practice until they can do it right. Professionals practice until they cannot do it wrong." -- John Farnam
User avatar
Lindy
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Rockport

Re: HB 1075 - Exempts LEO's from "No gun" signs

Postby fiftycal » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:29 pm

HB 1075 (Menendez) would exempt LEO's from Texas trespass laws set out in Penal Code Section 30.05, if the sole basis for their exclusion is the carrying of a firearm or other weapon. This applies to LEO's whether they are on duty or off duty.

The bottom line is no property owner, including homeowners, will be able to exclude any LEO from coming onto or into their private property with a gun. I have several friends who are active or retired LEO's, as well as many CHL holders, and everyone is welcome in my home with their pistolas. However, I find this bill disturbing, as it applies to off duty carry as well.

Regards,
Chas.


I spoke with "Jason" at Hegar's office today. He said the bill came from San Antonio police. The police were having trouble getting onto property that was "posted" against having weapons on the property.

I am neutral on this bill at this time. If the bill that exempts CHL holders from the vagaries of corporate idiocy passes, I'll be opposing this bill. If a site posts against carry, then they can depend on their own security (and CHL holders can leave their guns in their cars" and the police can stay out, absent a probable cause to go on the property.
fiftycal
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:26 pm

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:46 pm

Fiftycal:
Do you mean Menendez's office?

Thanks,
Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12978
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby Baytown » Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:56 am

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on off-duty and on-duty. There really is no such animal. As an LEO, I am either on paid time or not, I am always there to act if a felony, or theft occurs in my presence.

It should also be pointed out that it does not take away your right to exclude an off the clock LEO from your property, it bars someone from excluding them if the only reason is because they are carrying a weapon.

I think it would be a good law, especially when it deals with commercial property, as they are already regulated quite a bit by codes, statutes, city ords., etc...

Of course I might be biased. :)

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby dolanp » Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:46 am

I'm not sure I like it. If they have probable cause, they should be allowed in. If they are trying to enter private property without probable cause then the owner of said property would be within his/her rights to refuse them entry whether or not the reason has to do with a firearm.
Springfield XD 9mm Service
dolanp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: San Antonio

Postby fiftycal » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:58 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Fiftycal:
Do you mean Menendez's office?

Thanks,
Chas.


Oops. Yah. Got my Reps crossed up. Don't remember the aides name.
fiftycal
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:26 pm

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:59 am

Fiftycal:
Thanks for the update. I was wondering if we had another one coming out of the starting blocks.

Chas.
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12978
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby Baytown » Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:02 pm

dolanp, this bill would not effect the need for PC to enter private property. If PC exists, there is no reason for consent from the owner. I believe under 30.05 LEO's are exempt from crim tress is in the course of thier official duty.

This bill is to keep places like Astroworld or the Summit from telling LEO's they can not bring thier guns in. It is not a bill that will allow LEO's to walk into your house and say, "You can't stop me 'cause I'm wearn' a gun, boy."

An example that is out of control was Devereaux (I don't know how to spell it) in League City. It is a rehab place and a good friend of mine in uniform was going to interview a "resident" there. They told him they do not allow guns and he would need to leave his in his police car.

Another example, one of our officers was dropping her child off at day care in uniform, and the day care lady told her should could not bring her gun back inside next time. (Texas law allows ANY Texas peace officer to check ANY Texas day care facility at ANY time for proper postings and the such in the facility.)

These are example of what would be put an end to. Remember this is not an us vs. yall issue. You do not like 30.06 signs and would love to see them all come down. This is not some invasion by the govt conspiracy. Again, this would only keep people from discriminating against LEO's, based solely on thier armed/not armed status.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby dolanp » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:19 pm

No offense to LEOs but if they are not on official duty I don't see why they should have more or less latitude than CHL holders. Just my opinion, though.
Springfield XD 9mm Service
dolanp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: San Antonio

Postby Baytown » Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:11 pm

I do not take offense, but I must point out the CHL's have no required duty to act.

CHL holders are not required to prevent theft, the consequenses of theft, or breaches of the peace.

Some LEO's are required to carry a weapon with them even when not on the clock. The 30.06 signs do not apply to LEO's anyway, only CHL's.

LEO's are already exempt from laws concerning carrying a gun, and the law states that it is no difference if in the commission of official duty or not. There is no restriction on me carrying in a bar, a church, a hospital, school, etc... There already exists a difference in status on carry between CHL's and LEO's

I do not see what everyones opposition to this bill is. If you do not want an LEO in your house, then he will not come in unless he has a warrant or PC. Commercial properties are a different story, but there is already quite a bit of regulation and normally for the good.

If it was up to me, I would say carry when and where you want, I could care less. The fact is however, it is not up to me. In the mean time, people who support gun rights should support this bill. This is a prime example of a divided front. Even if it is a law that does not "help" everyone out, it does "help" someone out.

The same group that would oppose this probably opposed national concealed carry for police saying it violated states rights and created a two class system.

What suggestions do yall have when one is required to carry a gun, is required to act when certain crimes take place in your presence, but some Demo Lib wants to make his place "safer" by not allowing LEO's in his resteraunt.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby fiftycal » Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:48 pm

Baytown wrote:What suggestions do yall have when one is required to carry a gun, is required to act when certain crimes take place in your presence, but some Demo Lib wants to make his place "safer" by not allowing LEO's in his resteraunt.

Glenn


Find another place to eat.
fiftycal
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:26 pm

Postby dolanp » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:11 pm

I suppose I agree with you Baytown I just wish all of the dumb laws would be erased from the books for everyone. :)
Springfield XD 9mm Service
dolanp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:42 pm
Location: San Antonio

Postby Baytown » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:17 pm

I agree all the stupid gun laws should be removed. Bottom line is if youo are not a felon, carry away.

As far as finding another place to eat, it is easier said than done. If my child wants to go to Astroworld or Six Flags, what is an officer supposed to do. If he should have his gun and does not, he can get days off or lose his job. If he does not take the children out and do "family things" the house mouse gets upset. :roll:

Just think of this all as one step closer to universal carry.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby Lonegun1894 » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:33 pm

Baytown,
Cant argue with that logic. I personally dont agree with the whole "two class system". Having just gotten out of the service, i have carried FA items in various places LEGALLY that i now cant bring a handgun into. I am not anymore likely to do something stupid now than i was back then, so what's the difference? Having said that, I dont see a problem with an LEO carrying absolutely anywhere, same goes for a CHL in my book though.

Dumb question here. I have read somewhere about a case that the supreme court decided an LEO has NO DUTY to protect/intervene if they see something going on, like the felonies mentioned above. I believe the case was Warren vs. DC--could be completely wrong though. Talking to several LEOs, they all said they would step up, but this one has always had me a bit curious as to what the truth really is on the issue. I know i will not hesistate if need be, but then again, i go places i cant carry (school, etc) so am limited to a knife at times. Anyways, getting off track. Since the Supreme Court made that ruling, and it would seem to over rule TX law, what is the case as far as LEOs requirement to act. As much as i appreciate that you all do the job you do... well, if helping me means you take a chance of not going home to your family tonight, please walk away, i'll live or die with my choices.
Paul
USN/USMC '00-'05
CHL/NRA/Hunter Safety instructor
TCLEOSE
Lonegun1894
Member
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: Waco

Next

Return to 2005 Texas Legislative Session

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest