Signs for the CHLer

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire


rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#136

Post by rp_photo » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:21 pm

speedsix wrote:...I choose not to know the answer, not to let them know I'm smarter than they are about it...and quietly excercise my legal rights to carry concealed where there is no proper sign...some of life's questions just don't need answers...them's my thoughts...
Passive resistance / "playing dumb" is often the best approach.

When one is uncertain as to whether doing something is OK which wouldn't clearly be wrong to a sensible person, it's often better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#137

Post by speedsix » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:31 pm

...that philosophy works especially well when contemplating a new purchase and wondering what the wife would say :thumbs2:


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#138

Post by speedsix » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:37 pm

Ruark wrote:I'm wondering just how far they would go in enforcing that last sign. It's not valid, but it says "violators will be arrested and prosecuted." Has anybody run into attempted enforcement of one of these "invalid" signs? Could things be straightened out on the spot with the arresting officer? Even if I know I have the right to carry, I'm really not in the mood to interrupt a relaxing afternoon drive with my wife with being arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail, possibly for several days, before having the opportunity to defend myself in front of a judge. That would be something of a, er, headache.
...so far in Texas, I've only read of one person arrested under color of an unenforceable sign...and the DA declined to prosecute...the overwhelming majority of LEOs in Texas seem to like us CHLers, probably because so few of us ever cause a problem, and most departments seem to educate pretty well what is and isn't enforceable in signs...I've heard of one hard-headed chief who blusters that his men will arrest even though the property's not posted well...but one well-filed lawsuit will change his ways when the City Manager sees the check written to the mistreated citizen...that's worked well in other states...
...I'll bet you'll be like most of us, carrying 20 years without anyone spotting your weapon...it's not that hard, and on the once-in-a-lifetime occasion where you must pull it in a place that "attempted" posting it...you won't even hesitate...nor should you expect problems for doing so...


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#139

Post by JKTex » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:08 pm

Ruark wrote:I'm wondering just how far they would go in enforcing that last sign. It's not valid, but it says "violators will be arrested and prosecuted." Has anybody run into attempted enforcement of one of these "invalid" signs? Could things be straightened out on the spot with the arresting officer? Even if I know I have the right to carry, I'm really not in the mood to interrupt a relaxing afternoon drive with my wife with being arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail, possibly for several days, before having the opportunity to defend myself in front of a judge. That would be something of a, er, headache.
It could say violators will be turned into butternut squash too. Neither means anything if effective notice is not given. Under the Law, that is not effective notice. Assumed or implied intention isn't effective notice. Effective notice is spelled out clearly in the law.


Ruark
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#140

Post by Ruark » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:16 pm

speedsix wrote:
Ruark wrote:I'm wondering just how far they would go in enforcing that last sign. It's not valid, but it says "violators will be arrested and prosecuted." Has anybody run into attempted enforcement of one of these "invalid" signs? Could things be straightened out on the spot with the arresting officer? Even if I know I have the right to carry, I'm really not in the mood to interrupt a relaxing afternoon drive with my wife with being arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail, possibly for several days, before having the opportunity to defend myself in front of a judge. That would be something of a, er, headache.
...so far in Texas, I've only read of one person arrested under color of an unenforceable sign...and the DA declined to prosecute
Would you happen to know any details of what happened? Was the individual arrested an incarcerated while waiting for that DA? No matter how nicely things work out, unexpectedly spending even a day or two in some jail is NOT a small matter.
-Ruark


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#141

Post by speedsix » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:21 pm

... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#142

Post by JKTex » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:55 pm

Ruark wrote:
speedsix wrote:
Ruark wrote:I'm wondering just how far they would go in enforcing that last sign. It's not valid, but it says "violators will be arrested and prosecuted." Has anybody run into attempted enforcement of one of these "invalid" signs? Could things be straightened out on the spot with the arresting officer? Even if I know I have the right to carry, I'm really not in the mood to interrupt a relaxing afternoon drive with my wife with being arrested, cuffed, and taken to jail, possibly for several days, before having the opportunity to defend myself in front of a judge. That would be something of a, er, headache.
...so far in Texas, I've only read of one person arrested under color of an unenforceable sign...and the DA declined to prosecute
Would you happen to know any details of what happened? Was the individual arrested an incarcerated while waiting for that DA? No matter how nicely things work out, unexpectedly spending even a day or two in some jail is NOT a small matter.
Consider what the crime is for knowingly staying in a building where you have been given effective notice. It's not murder. :mrgreen:


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#143

Post by JKTex » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:59 pm

speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...
What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply. :confused5

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 12778
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#144

Post by C-dub » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:38 pm

JKTex wrote:
speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...
What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply. :confused5
Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#145

Post by JKTex » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:16 am

C-dub wrote:
JKTex wrote:
speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...
What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply. :confused5
Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.
I got that, but what question does page 2 answer? I gleaned it and didn't notice anything related here.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 12778
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#146

Post by C-dub » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:45 am

JKTex wrote:
C-dub wrote:
JKTex wrote:
speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...
What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply. :confused5
Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.
I got that, but what question does page 2 answer? I gleaned it and didn't notice anything related here.
It was the nurse. The nurse was arrested, but not prosecuted. It didn't say how long the nurse was in jail, but they were there.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#147

Post by JKTex » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:46 pm

C-dub wrote:
JKTex wrote:
C-dub wrote:
JKTex wrote:
speedsix wrote:... posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=609577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; your answer's on page 2... click the thread title to see the whole thread...
What answer are you referring to? That link goes to a quoted reply. :confused5
Ya gotta click on the title after you get to the reply.
I got that, but what question does page 2 answer? I gleaned it and didn't notice anything related here.
It was the nurse. The nurse was arrested, but not prosecuted. It didn't say how long the nurse was in jail, but they were there.
We're getting a fresh start. ;-)

Here is the thread started by txinvestigator that includes a response from the Chief of Police from Bedford in the OP explaining why the Nurses Aid was arrested. The arrest was justified based on her being given prior written notice yet putting a handgun in her purse and leaving it in a locked-down area in a mental health facility anyway, a place where even PD does not carry. But she ended up not being prosecuted based on the fact that the notice was not worded properly and as an aside, apparently all signs posted at the entrances also had wording problems but were not the initial reason for her arrest. But regardless of the technicality, she was about 10 ways wrong and negligent so the arrest good. If that's the only one, it's good on CHL holders. The follow up is in another thread about 2 years later after the DA kicked it. The collateral effect seems to be that this clinic and Baylor both have corrected the signs and are valid now.

If you notice, many hospitals have 30.06 signs posted, but only on buildings that house mental health facilities, which you may or may not be aware are there. After experiencing them first hand (not as a patient :smilelol5: ) it's about the only place I can think of that not carrying is fully justified by common sense. It's the kind of place where even carrying a pen is prohibited, and for good reason.

I thought it was important to understand that specific issue in full.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&p=147715" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#148

Post by speedsix » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:19 am

...the original forum thread on this incident, from Jan 08 is

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&p=147214&hili ... se#p147214" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...the OP told us about the Ch. 8 video story...which has now been removed from the link...
...the video, according to the OP, showed an unenforceable sign on the hospital doors, and discussion on the video was regarding the signage not being properly enforceable 30.06 signage...the video even had shown an interview with a CHL instructor and showed an enforceable sign...no mention of written notice...
...either the Bedford Chief, or, as was later reported a police spokesman (a Lt.) said that hospitals were off limits period and she broke the law(the OP didn't report WHICH law the police officer said she'd broken)... there was no mention of "written notice" in all of this...
...Tx. Inv., a member, later in the same thread,posted a letter to the Chief in Bedford, making no mention of "written notice"
...the Chief replied, also posted in that thread, and now he said "written notice had been given and sufficed for notice" regardless of the door signs...first mention of "written notice"...this after public news report and contacts by several concerned citizens pointed out the unenforceable signs...
...no other facts were given us regarding the actual specific subportion of the law she had been charged under...it's public record in the booking records at the police dept...but it would have had to be under 30.06 or 46.035...we're not told which here...it makes no difference...


...on June 7, 2010, a member posted, again in the original thread, and said he'd just gotten an email from the Chief saying the DA declined to prosecute due to wording (not being exactly as it states in the statute) of not only the sign posted outside the building but also the wording in the hospital employee policy manual...

...her arrest was in no way justified...she broke no law...she didn't get off on a technicality...she was released without trial because she was a law-abiding CHL holder excercising her rights within the letter of the law and never should have been arrested in the first place...those who arrested her were not following the law, and, indeed, publicly proved they didn't know/understand what it said in the initial news report...the arrest wasn't good at all...she broke no law...none...

...I'm not saying the police are evil in the way they handled this...but they didn't know the law initially, and their statements changed as the facts were made public about their errors in understanding ...we don't know what they initially told her she was under arrest for, or what was booked, but the DA's report covered both first: signage and second: written notice being worded wrong as reasons not to prosecute...had the officers known the law thoroughly, they would never have deprived her of her liberty...

...the woman got fired...OK...the hospital has that right...she went against their policy...that's a matter of business, not law...she made a choice that her personal safety to and from work was more important than pleasing her employer...it cost her her job...

...my personal opinion was that she showed poor judgement to leave a weapon in an unsecured place...regardless of what that place was...she had no control over it while she worked...that's not wise...

...the police booking blotter and police officer's arrest report might say something else, we don't know from anything reported by the threads here, which are our source for understanding what happened...but for "written notice" to only be brought up after public news reports demonstrated that the sign was unenforceable, for the police spokesman to have demonstrated his ignorance of the 46.035 law, and for the DA(according to the Chief's email) to have given BOTH the wording of the sign AND ALSO the wording of the written notice as reasons not to prosecute, I can reasonably say that, as I posted above, her arrest was under the color of an unenforceable sign, since the DA gave it as half of the reason he didn't prosecute........as reasonably as anyone can say that it was under the color of written notice...and THAT'S the rest of the story, until someone goes and digs out the police records or interviews the arrested woman or the arresting officer...


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 21
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#149

Post by JKTex » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:45 am

You realize she was an employee, in an environment where it is standard for nothing that can be used as a weapon is permitted, even LEO's can't carry weapons in the lock down areas. She was bound by the companies employee policies of no weapons. Apparently what was given to employees was not worded properly but non the less, she knowingly put a hand gun in a locked down area.

With what Bedford had at the time, and supported by the DA, it was a good arrest. That doesn't mean charges will, can or are worth pursuing and apparently the inaccurate wording is what was on her side. I'm sure she lost her job that day as well. Just a guess though, but deserving. She needed to find a new career or go back, or finish school because she missed quite a bit. :mrgreen:

I think we've taken this further than it needs to have gone at this point. We'll agree that you think she was wrongly arrested and I don't. Cheers.


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

Re: Signs for the CHLer

#150

Post by speedsix » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:58 am

...I agree that she violated her employer's orders and did something foolish...but that's not breaking a law...

...I agree that most officers DON'T carry into lockdown areas, but they, by law, CAN and DO and have...occasionally...

...I don't agree that Bedford had facts that made it a good arrest...they couldn't have...she'd broken no law...and the DA didn't support it, he dismissed it...and his reasons supported that she'd broken no law...

...I don't think she missed understanding the CHL laws...and obeying them is why she was released without a trial...her thinking about carrying in such a place and especially leaving the weapon unsecured needs a lot of work...and I don't fault them for firing her...but, again, that's business, not criminal law...

...I agree nothing further can be served by continuing back-and-forth...the facts are here for all to read...and the opinions are our own...

Post Reply

Return to “New to CHL?”