TexasCHLforum.com

BBYC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:37 pm

WildRose wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:05 pm At some point if they aren't going to recognize and protect our rights remedies have to be sought and just about everything else has been tried.

Only three of the four boxes have been given a fair chance this century.

jordanmills wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:00 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:07 pm

jordanmills wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:53 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:16 pm

RogueUSMC wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:51 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:03 pm

Which is why I suggested wouldn't want to be the "test case". On the other hand, since the offense is a class C misdemeanor, unless you choose to refuse to leave, I doubt whether it would come to an arrest.

I guess to really be a "test case" you would have to refuse to leave after being confronted. Then the offense would be a class A misdemeanor, even though you wouldn't really be guilty of it under any reasonable reading of the statute. Then you would presumably get arrested. Then if you lost at trial (unjustly), you would have to appeal. When an appellate court then ruled in your favor (you hope), you would have that elusive "case law", on your side.

Even then, it could be charged as plain vanilla trespass without the gun needing to be an issue...then the whole thing falls flat. The 30.06/30.07 just ups the charge for a given trespass violation. If the DA wanted to just go with just the trespass, your who 'test case' goes out the window...

To which you would have a statutory defense to prosecution in 30.05. So the "plain vanilla" trespass would have trouble.

Basically depends on if they say that you can't be there because you have a gun with an LTC, or because they just plain don't want you there...

Then the question becomes one of whether they can arbitrarily eject you from an event on public property. Presumably they would have to articulate a reason for your being asked to leave other than they don’t like your face. This is public property and in the case of the Fair they are not leasing it for their exclusive use, and may not have the authority to eject youmfrom city property.

It would be super if that were the case. But are we going to convince the big fish in these little ponds that pesky rights are worth more than dollars from their buddies?

Jusme wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:25 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:03 pm

Which is why I suggested wouldn't want to be the "test case". On the other hand, since the offense is a class C misdemeanor, unless you choose to refuse to leave, I doubt whether it would come to an arrest.

I guess to really be a "test case" you would have to refuse to leave after being confronted. Then the offense would be a class A misdemeanor, even though you wouldn't really be guilty of it under any reasonable reading of the statute. Then you would presumably get arrested. Then if you lost at trial (unjustly), you would have to appeal. When an appellate court then ruled in your favor (you hope), you would have that elusive "case law", on your side.

And be a whole lot lighter in the wallet, with little or no recourse to recover any of it. We need to pressure our State reps to rectify, the law, so that the AG, doesn't have to render opinions, and it is spelled out in black and white. Another case of being restricted, where LEO, are not. JMHO