TexasCHLforum.com

Pursuant to Opinion KP-0047, it is only the courtrooms, and
those offices determined to be essential to their operations, from
which Hays County may prohibit concealed handguns without risk
of incurring a civil penalty under section 411.209 of the Government
Code.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
Where was the "should" question asked? What would the damages the "theater" or bowling alley/laser tag be based on? Would the cop or his department be liable? You have indicated before there would need to be damages to the plaintiff for a settlement to be rendered. What are the damages that justify a "big time" settlement?

Are you going to call me names if you dislike my answers?

EEllis wrote:

casp625 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: 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.

Well my understanding is that a laws intent only matters if there is something ambiguous in the language otherwise it should be legal as read. A example where I was schooled on this was the legality of carrying a otherwise illegal knife with a chl. Because of the language CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons but the intent was just to make it legal to carry handguns. I thought the intent should matter. It doesn't. Through a loophole CHLers can carry otherwise illegal weapons. In this case it isn't a government agency but a private promoter posting what seems a previously unconsidered policy. And please be aware law enforcement cannot enforce house rules. Using cop to secure the weapons is one thing, but if they are at the door checking and directing people to have the guns secured it's a clear violation. Cop can't kick you out of a theater for bringing in outside food. An employee must ask you to leave and then a cop can make you do so.

Well, me and a friend went to a bowling alley that had laser tag and an arcade, both of us had on a sleeveless shirt. One employee greeted us at the door and as were about to pay for bowling, a police officer approached us and asked us to leave and come back with shirts with sleeves. The officer stated that it was against the establishments policy and he was just enforcing it. At no time did any employee ask us to leave for wearing a sleeveless. Are you saying I could have told him to kick rocks and went on with my business?

Should? That's a different question. I'm saying if that cop did anything to enforce that rule he would be wrong and the theater may end up paying out big time.

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.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

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?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Are you choosing to ignore that it is illegal for them to have the 30.06 sign up and prohibit concealed carry on city or county owned propert or are you just being obtuse for argument's sake?

Again it's just not a 30.06 sign or warning involved as far as it's been described. I think they are exploiting a loophole.

EEllis wrote:

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?

All they have to do is have a non law enforcement to do the initial contact. The rule seems enforcable it just a house rule that would be enforced by trespassing off property someone who violated it.

I've never had them take ammo, where is that from?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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

HPD told it's officers working extra jobs at gun shows on City of Houston property to stop enforcing the 30.06 sign. They said Texas law doesn't allow government property to be posted and that the sign was nothing more than the promoter's private policy. HPD correctly stated that its officers cannot enforce policies, only Texas law and city ordinances. The promoter's response was to hire Harris County Deputies.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Kendall County's metal detectors are located on the second floor between the elevators and where the entrance to the courtrooms are. Where are the metal detectors located in the Austin courthouses you reference?

On the first floor. No one enters with a badge or a search. I guess the whole thing is a "courthouse".

I was at: 419TH DISTRICT COURT, which is at Heman Marion Sweatt
Heman Marion Sweatt Travis County Courthouse @ 1000 Guadalupe Austin, Tx.


The court was on the 3rd floor.
There's a cafeteria downstairs.
It also contains the civil part of the district clerk (same floor - 3rd).
It's a 6-floor building...

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: This is incorrect. The definition of "premises" includes "a building or portion of a building, . . ." If only a portion of a building is used as a court, then only that portion of the building is off-limits.
Chas.

Chas, you ever test this at one of the civil court houses in Austin? They've got metal detectors. There are definitely courtrooms in the building, but there are also areas that exist simply for public record purposes.
I haven't been down there in a while, or I'd ask... I'm guessing I know what the answer is.