Section (f) and section section (i) are very similar except that (f) provides a Defense to Prosecution to CHL if the reason for denying entry was that you were carrying a concealed handgun and (i) provides that 30.05 doesn't apply to peace officers if the reason for denying entry was that LEO was carrying a weapon.C-dub wrote:Sometimes 30.05 makes my head hurt and this is one of those times.ScottDLS wrote:I guess he doesn't have the "right" to be there, but neither does the theater have the ability to prosecute him under Texas trespass law for carrying there against their wishes TXPC 30.05 has an exception for LEO's whether on or off duty, and 30.06 does not apply.LabRat wrote:I saw that today as well....I believe the lawyer and Tim Ryan said the officer had a "right" to be at the theater with his weapon. I disagree with that...businesses may prohibit admission or service to anyone so long as they don't discriminate. That doesn't mean its smart, but it is reality.paperchunker wrote:http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26278225/ ... te-theater
AMC in Mesquite made an off duty LEO leave when they saw his gun.
No shirt, no shoes, gun? = no service. If the business owner or person in charge decides they don't want someone in their business, they can make that happen.
AMC is notorious for their anti-gun stance. But if a business says leave and you don't, it should be trespassing...police officer to not.
LabRat
Section (a) it says that an offense is committed if a person enters or remains on or in the property of another if they had received notice to depart and failed to do so.
Then in section (f) if says that it is a defense to prosecution if the person has a CHL.
And in section (i) it says that this section, I guess all of 30.05, does not apply if you are a peace officer on or off duty.
What is giving me a headache now is trying to determine the effective difference between sections (f) and (i). It surely isn't saying that even if I have been given notice to depart that if I don't I can use my CHL as a defense to prosecution if I don't leave, right? It does sound like that, no?
Pretty much the same except one is a DEFENSE and one makes the statute not apply. Also the LEO can carry any weapon concealed or unconcealed. If you were given notice under 30.05 by a sign (other than 30.06 sign) then you could carry anyway and have a DEFENSE. If you were told verbally (yes, yes, ORALLY), that carry not allowed, then you still have the DEFENSE to 30.05, but 30.06 may apply if it is otherwise applicable. LEO's are not subject to 30.06, so ORAL notice wouldn't apply. In the AMC case the DPD officer's issue was theoretically lousy concealment. If I go to an AMC that is not properly posted 30.06 (most aren't), I just make sure I stay concealed. That way I don't have to fear the proverbial "ride" or being "the test case" that we'll never have. The LEO doesn't have to stay concealed, but this time the movie visit was ruined because he didn't. I don't give a darn about private business owners' "rights" when they don't properly post because Texas doesn't care about them in the case of LEO's, even if they DO post. Good for the goose good for the gander!
