Pasadena gun show - AG complaint filed

[Glockster]

Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

Yup.

[dhoobler]

Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

If this was a baseball game, you would have just hit a walk-off home run.

[dhoobler]

I believe I read it here but: the city requires insurance in order to rent the venue & the gun show organizer cant get insurance unless he abides by the insurance company's provisions. The insurance company stipulates the firearm policies.

Too bad. If your insurance company required you to have blinking red and blue lights on top of your vehicle, would they pay the fines? The insurance company is going to have to live with the law.

Mentioned above, the gun show organizer says that by buying a ticket you enter into a contract and so on, in which case a 30.06 sign becomes unnecessary and in light of the law, illegal to post. They are going to have to put up another sign.

Something to chew on:

If the insurer can mandate this policy for gun shows, whats to stop them from banning guns at boat shows, gardening shows, art shows, etc?

Well a big thing is there are additional safety concerns because in the course of regular business people going to gun shows handle guns openly. Any other show doing so would get you arrested. That factor could make a difference in how a court rules.

Doing so at a gun show will get you arrested if the gun you are handling is loaded and was concealed prior to you handling it.

No reasonable person objects to requiring guns that will be handled be unloaded and rendered inoperative, by a police officer or otherwise. A gun that is loaded, concealed and remains concealed for the duration of the show is in an entirely different category.

[kg5ie]

Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

Since they are not posting 30.06 but signs saying guns must be unloaded before entry how is anyone making it criminal? Also intent means squat. Just ask people on here about the legality of a incorrect 30.06 sign. All the sudden it's the letter of the law then. But you are right in that if police working these show are not careful they could open themselves and the promoters to major civil liability.

The gun show at Will Rogers is posting a 30.06. Big and bold. On about a 3'x5' sign. If anywhere else, it would be a legitimate sign.

[dhoobler]

Ok, time for my opinion; let's think about this for a minute. 30.06 can not legitimately be posted at the gun show on public property unless it is one of the restricted places. If the city does, it eventually should cost them some money. The renter cannot make an enforcable 30.06 posting; 30.05 is practically a non-starter since your chl is a fine defense to prosecution written into that law and 30.06 practically supercedes it for non-restricted places, therefore it is not a criminal offence for you to carry there. The renter cannot superscede state law to make it a criminal offense when the state says it is not even if for a presumed good cause of reducing negligent discharge, therefor his claim that you cannot be there on non-restricted public property becomes a civil matter for which you must be sued. If someone under color of law lays hands on you or restricts your movement on non-restricted public space, they in all liklihood are at that point breaking criminal law themselves and may also be subject to civil suit. Frankly I would think lawyers would be lining up hoping a renter messes up and hires private security which assaults an attendee.

SB273 has helped show legislative intent and the anti-gun minority is desperate while they are running out of room to maneuver.

Since they are not posting 30.06 but signs saying guns must be unloaded before entry how is anyone making it criminal? Also intent means squat. Just ask people on here about the legality of a incorrect 30.06 sign. All the sudden it's the letter of the law then. But you are right in that if police working these show are not careful they could open themselves and the promoters to major civil liability.

The gun show at Will Rogers is posting a 30.06. Big and bold. On about a 3'x5' sign. If anywhere else, it would be a legitimate sign.

Find out which government entity owns Will Rogers. Write a letter to the chief officer (mayor, county judge, etc.) requesting that the signs not be posted in the future. Wait three days. If they get posted after that. send a complaint the the attorney general.

Give us updates. We all have an interest in getting local governments to stop violating the law.

[EEllis]

No reasonable person objects to requiring guns that will be handled be unloaded and rendered inoperative, by a police officer or otherwise. A gun that is loaded, concealed and remains concealed for the duration of the show is in an entirely different category.

That's true but the gun that stays concealed isn't the gun that the show is worried about. It's the chl that sees a holster and decided to pull out the previously concealed handgun to try it out. And you would know which firearm is which if they were not tying guns? Mind you I think that just stating any gun that would be handled or displayed must be tied would work just as well but the idea that everyone, especially the courts, will see things the same way is just unrealistic. People on here don't even see it all the same way.

[EEllis]

Doing so at a gun show will get you arrested if the gun you are handling is loaded and was concealed prior to you handling it.

Why? There really isn't difference in law that I'm aware of. I mean maybe you can twist something to fit but generally speaking there is no difference in showing a loaded or unloaded gun. Then there is the fact of how you would tell with all the guns everywhere. It's not like all gun shows have the exact same policies either..

[dhoobler]

Doing so at a gun show will get you arrested if the gun you are handling is loaded and was concealed prior to you handling it.

Why? There really isn't difference in law that I'm aware of. I mean maybe you can twist something to fit but generally speaking there is no difference in showing a loaded or unloaded gun. Then there is the fact of how you would tell with all the guns everywhere. It's not like all gun shows have the exact same policies either..

It is really difficult to take your question seriously. Current Texas law says that is an offence for a CHL holder to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun. I can't think of a scenario in which a CHL holder carried a loaded, concealed handgun into a gun show and proceeded to handle it without intentionally failing to conceal it.

[dhoobler]

No reasonable person objects to requiring guns that will be handled be unloaded and rendered inoperative, by a police officer or otherwise. A gun that is loaded, concealed and remains concealed for the duration of the show is in an entirely different category.

That's true but the gun that stays concealed isn't the gun that the show is worried about. It's the chl that sees a holster and decided to pull out the previously concealed handgun to try it out. And you would know which firearm is which if they were not tying guns? Mind you I think that just stating any gun that would be handled or displayed must be tied would work just as well but the idea that everyone, especially the courts, will see things the same way is just unrealistic. People on here don't even see it all the same way.

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

[Taypo]

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on this point and I'd suspect anyone who's spent any amount of time behind tables at gun shows would too. Your experiences appear to be very different than mine.

[E.Marquez]

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on this point and I'd suspect anyone who's spent any amount of time behind tables at gun shows would too. Your experiences appear to be very different than mine.

Only about a dozen times observed in the only three gun shows I have ever gone to in Texas.
Looking for a new belt, takes off belt and gun /holster try's on new belt.
Looking at new holster for CCW, takes out CCW and test fits it in new holster
Looks at new gun,asks if it fits a Big Bob Cantuess, custom lizard / Ox/ Hippo IWB MOB, reverse draw holster.,, Gun table guy says "beats me"....guy takes out CCW, sets on table (loaded and pointing and someones body) and tries to holster a zip tied open chambered weapon

Those are three events I vividly remember ... I can recount others with a little work.

[EEllis]

Doing so at a gun show will get you arrested if the gun you are handling is loaded and was concealed prior to you handling it.

Why? There really isn't difference in law that I'm aware of. I mean maybe you can twist something to fit but generally speaking there is no difference in showing a loaded or unloaded gun. Then there is the fact of how you would tell with all the guns everywhere. It's not like all gun shows have the exact same policies either..

It is really difficult to take your question seriously. Current Texas law says that is an offence for a CHL holder to intentionally fail to conceal their handgun. I can't think of a scenario in which a CHL holder carried a loaded, concealed handgun into a gun show and proceeded to handle it without intentionally failing to conceal it.

My point was there is no difference between a loaded an unloaded gun by law. If handling a unloaded gun is legal then so is handling a loaded one. Or do you think there is some part of the penal code that says if you unload your gun then it's ok to fail to conceal? Look you disagree and that's fine. I've made this point before and I'll mention it for the last time now and I'm done. Intent is only supposed to matter when the language of a law is ambiguous. I don't think it is here. I agree with you that the intent is there but the language is may not be.

[EEllis]

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

http://www.newson6.com/story/7679311/ac ... e-hospital

Investigators say 24 year-old Jacob Hurst of Tulsa pulled a loaded semi automatic pistol out of his holster, it accidentally went off and hit the victim.

Yeah OK. No chance at all.

took about 45 sec to find this by the way.

[dlh]

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

http://www.newson6.com/story/7679311/ac ... e-hospital

Investigators say 24 year-old Jacob Hurst of Tulsa pulled a loaded semi automatic pistol out of his holster, it accidentally went off and hit the victim.

Yeah OK. No chance at all.

took about 45 sec to find this by the way.

Aha! Another example of how "Israeli Carry" would have prevented that incident!

dlh

[puma guy]

No reasonable person would anticipate a CHL holder drawing their loaded weapon from concealment at a gun show. I do not take seriously hypothetical scenarios that have little or no change of becoming reality.

I'll respectfully disagree with you on this point and I'd suspect anyone who's spent any amount of time behind tables at gun shows would too. Your experiences appear to be very different than mine.

Looking for a new belt, takes off belt and gin/holster tires on ne belt.

Therein lies the problem. Don't worry I understand what you meant, just couldn't resist.