New Opinion of DPS Attorney on CHL under 46.035

[Charles L. Cotton]

Today, a CHL instructor told a group of us the following: In training last month with DPS, that the DPS attorney specifically stated that CHL holders may NOT carry In a hospital or nursing home, amusement park, established place of religious worship, or meeting of a governmental entity and CHL instructors were to teach the class as such. The CHL instructor said she and several other instructors all cited 46.035 (i) 'Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.' The DPS attorney was adamant that CHL instructors must teach that you CAN NOT carry in those establishments whether or not 30.06 is posted. This is the "official" position of DPS and the course instruction for CHL.

Has anyone else heard that DPS is giving a legal opinion that CHL holders still can not carry in the referenced establishments in 46.035 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) even with the addition of 46.035 subsection i? If so, has the AG published a legal opinion on this? Is this being challenged administratively or legally by anyone?

Thanks,

Ron

This is utterly false. Please see if you can get the name of the DPS attorney who said this (as if I didn't know) so I can take this to the appropriate DPS supervisory personnel. He won't be happy.

Chas.

[rtschl]

The instructor we spoke with yesterday, stated that the DPS attorney specifically stated that the law change did not matter because the statue states that those places are prohibited. They challenged her as to the plain reading of subsection i, but she was insistent.

Since the DPS attorney is speaking authoritatively for DPS and what instructors must teach, this is a serious contradiction. That is why I was wanting to know if anyone knew about this opinion or if it is supported by the Attorney General . Has DPS has been administratively or legally challenged on this? If instructors are being forced to teach something that contradicts the statute, then DPS needs to be forced to change their position to reflect the change in the law.

Thanks,

Ron

[Charles L. Cotton]

The instructor we spoke with yesterday, stated that the DPS attorney specifically stated that the law change did not matter because the statue states that those places are prohibited. They challenged her as to the plain reading of subsection i, but she was insistent.

Since the DPS attorney is speaking authoritatively for DPS and what instructors must teach, this is a serious contradiction. That is why I was wanting to know if anyone knew about this opinion or if it is supported by the Attorney General . Has DPS has been administratively or legally challenged on this? If instructors are being forced to teach something that contradicts the statute, then DPS needs to be forced to change their position to reflect the change in the law.

Thanks,

Ron

This has been the law since 1997 and nothing has changed. Furthermore, no DPS attorney can tell me to teach a false statement of the law. If you will get me her name, and the name of the instructor with whom you spoke, I'll take this to the man who heads up the entire CHL Division. I cannot pursue this without a positive identification of the DPS attorney and the person who heard her comment.

Chas.

[rtschl]

Charles,

We were told that it was a female attorney who stated that she is lead (or primary) chl attorney for DPS.

I will try find out the name for you.

Thank you very much!

Ron

[Texgun]

The lady's name is Deena Shaw. I cannot recall her exact words from the August 25th class. She basically stated that license holders already have "effective notice" because the "off limits" locations are specifically mentioned in the law. When asked about how the law would be applied since it was modified with the 30.06 language she fell back on "I cannot give legal advise". She did say that if SHE were defending someone charged with a violation she had a pretty good idea of how she would present her defense. She definitely did not want to talk about that.

I dismissed the statements as somebody imprinting their bias into a situation. I am not a lawyer but I feel comfortable teaching my students the intricacies of the firearms laws in Texas. I am unconcerned about her feelings on the matter.

[KFP]

The same attorney that prides herself on being, "the most hated woman in Texas?"

I find it hard to believe that it could be her...

[AEA]

Have we run out of rails to run her out on?

[RPB]

Deleted my post, due to useless information contained therein

[AEA]

Probably hasn't been here from Kommiefornia long enough to get into the listing......

[gemini]

Post deleted.

[RPB]

I tried to delete mine, didn't see a delete button, so I did the best I could

Still, if she's single and attracted to long grey beards, I could invite her to the church in Austin my cousin Pastors, if having 20 or 30 armed Deacons and Preachers and others around doesn't scare her (just kidding, she'd never know) It isn't some strange cult church like out in Waco, it starts with a B and ends with an aptist. (That's partly a joke too, because another cousin Pastors a same denomination church in Waco.)

[dihappy]

Charles,
If you know the Lawyer, please update us if anything was cleared up with her.

[howdy]

I did my Instructor recertification in October. The same female attorney that has been there since my initial Instructor class (2001) taught the legal portion. She is not very well liked because she truly does not think that civilians should be allowed to carry a handgun. She said that she always has an armed plain clothes officer with her if she has to meet with a citizen over a CHL dispute. She said the civilian might get mad and shoot her. I really do not know how she keeps her job.

Anyway, there was NO mention in my class about any new interpretation of 46.035. I truly believe that she would be laughed at by the Instructors present in the room if she said something off the wall like that. Her portion of the renewal is by far the most worthless part of an overall good class.

[C-dub]

Whoever said this sounds like the same yahoo that supposedly gave bogus information to the DPD and Fair Park Security personnel regarding being able to prohibit our entry if they aren't allowed to collect our personal information. I guess this just lets us know where her head is at.

[AEA]

Are we gonna get an update on this from Charles or anyone else at TSRA?