ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:06 amNo surprise. The same will happen at the Texas State Fair at Fair Park. Anyone care to be the proverbial "test case"? Authorities in Texas don't want LTC's to open carry. They will stop it regardless of the law.
If somebody is willing to be a test case and do an "audit" on camera, I bet the fudds and fredocons will whine about how the law abiding test case provoked the people who were just doing their job by violating the law.
You might want to reconsider the AG opinion on private non-profits using government property before you call for a test case.
Chas.
Are you talking about the AG opinion where he wrote, 'These statutes make no exception to that exception for property owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity, and to conclude that carrying a handgun on such property is prohibited would therefore require reading language into the statute beyond what the Legislature included." or a different one?
Unless there's a subsequent opinion reversing that, it seems every Texas peace officer can be reasonably expected to know they're likely committing a false arrest by making an arrest, or committing official oppression by using their public authority to exclude somebody who is obeying the law.
I think the good cops would welcome legal action that removes the bad apples from their ranks, to maintain their professional integrity and the respect of the public.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.
ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:06 amNo surprise. The same will happen at the Texas State Fair at Fair Park. Anyone care to be the proverbial "test case"? Authorities in Texas don't want LTC's to open carry. They will stop it regardless of the law.
If somebody is willing to be a test case and do an "audit" on camera, I bet the fudds and fredocons will whine about how the law abiding test case provoked the people who were just doing their job by violating the law.
You might want to reconsider the AG opinion on private non-profits using government property before you call for a test case.
Chas.
Are you talking about the AG opinion where he wrote, 'These statutes make no exception to that exception for property owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity, and to conclude that carrying a handgun on such property is prohibited would therefore require reading language into the statute beyond what the Legislature included." or a different one?
Unless there's a subsequent opinion reversing that, it seems every Texas peace officer can be reasonably expected to know they're likely committing a false arrest by making an arrest, or committing official oppression by using their public authority to exclude somebody who is obeying the law.
I think the good cops would welcome legal action that removes the bad apples from their ranks, to maintain their professional integrity and the respect of the public.
As I noted in a prior post, yes that is the AG Opinion I referenced. Also as I said, it think the LTC would ultimately prevail on appeal, but after spending a lot of money doing so. Remember, AG Opinions do not carry the force of law; it's called an "opinion" for a reason.
No, not every LEO is going to be aware of AG Opinions, not by any stretch of the imagination. No, a LEO making an arrest will not be making a bad faith arrest based upon an untested AG Opinion.
Don't be so quick to call for a test case unless you are willing to put your own freedom and money to the test.
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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
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
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
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...
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
- Napoleon Bonaparte
PFC Paul E. Ison USMC 1916-2001
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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
They need to be reported. Perhaps a short visit with the man/woman at the top first to educate them on the law would be helpful and could resolve it quietly but one way or another it needs to be resolved.
NRA Life MemberNRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO, USCCA Certified Instructor TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor. Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
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
This is why the fines and court costs need to be laid on the officials abusing our rights personally rather than them continuing to do so on the taxpayer's dime.
NRA Life MemberNRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO, USCCA Certified Instructor TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor. Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
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...
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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
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?
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?
They are neither our buddies nor their's. I think we'll probably see some more movement on that in the next session.
We all knew there would be some push back when the law changed but they've had more than ample time to work out the bugs and some of these folks are flat out abusing the citizens using their offices simply because they don't like the law.
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.
NRA Life MemberNRA Certified Instructor RSO, CRSO, USCCA Certified Instructor TX LTC licensed Instructor Personal/Family Protection and Self Defense Instructor. Without The First and Second Amendments the rest are meaningless.
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.
God, grant me serenity to accept the things I can't change
Courage to change the things I can
And the firepower to make a difference.
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...
That's why it's so important to record the interaction, preferably covertly.
And why some object so much to citizens recording their interactions with the government.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.