TexasCHLforum.com

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours is a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

It never fails to amaze me the number of people that are afraid of doing stuff that simply is not illegal. You do stuff that IS illegal every day, and don't think twice about it. Why sweat the stuff that isn't illegal?

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours is a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

True but there's nothing wrong with going somewhere else instead, where the management is less bigoted and/or less ignorant.

snorri wrote:

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours is a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

True but there's nothing wrong with going somewhere else instead, where the management is less bigoted and/or less ignorant.

No argument there, and I do so whenever possible (to the exasperation of my wife).
But in this case, it's an annual event with no comparable alternatives. You might have already made plans with some friends, some of which may not know you carry, or sympathize with your decision to bail out.

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours used to be a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

I fixed it for you. I understand your point and, in principal, agree with it.

I'd be more inclined to approach this from a "likelyhood" standpoint.

1. If you carry past the sign, it is unlikely that you will be discovered. Concealed is concealed and I doubt that anyone has the specific duty to try to detect concealed handguns. I would be more concerned at a place like Grapevine Mills Mall (which has been discussed a lot on the forum recently and has the exact same worded sign) where there may be LEOs who are actually looking a the crowd.
2. If you were detected, it would be likely that you would arrested and taken to jail. I doubt that the LEO involved would see the difference in wording on the sign versus the TPC as an inhibitor to his actions. At least one PD has so stated. The general feeling is that the PD does not want to incur the ire of the owners of the property who put up the sign and that that feeling trumps the specificity of the TPC.

My own opinion is that at the local, State and Federal levels, laws have become more like guidelines and that they are open to interpretation much more so than most of us would prefer to admit. All too often, IMHO, those who violate the law are excused from prosecution because of the bias of organization charged with that prosecution. On the other side of that coin, those same organizations seem willing to "make an example." out of an otherwise law abiding citizen. I truly believe that with an unblemished criminal record, I have much more of a chance of being prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law than a career criminal and I personally believe that in many cases, it is to prove to me that I need to be subservient. If I carried a gun onto Federal property, even by accident, I have a greater risk of prosecution than someone who lit up a "mary jane" on that same property.

The nearest hospital to me used to have that same 4413(29ee)sign.

I have the time, being retired from working in a law office for 25 years, to not worry about "their intent"
All hospitals were/are required to post "a sign"

Some owned by the same group as the one nearest me, ... in other cities, post valid 30.06 signs
The hospital nearest me which used to have the old sign [posted, has now removed that sign, but not posted a 30.06 sign ... instead they posted THE sign which hospitals are required to post.

If we're playing read the intent/mind of the hospital, their obvious intent was to comply with the law in posting the particular 51% type sign they are legally required to post, while knowing that doesn't affect licensees.... else they'd post both signs since they removed one, "studied up" and ordered a new sign which complied with what they are required to post.

Texas had "blue laws" where it was a criminal offense to purchase fastening hardware on a Sunday (with exceptions as it's for a coffin/funeral etc) I can't see that anyone would be arrested now for buying hardware on a Sunday.... that law was repealed.
Texas had an anti-sodomy law ... it was repealed .... while some might like to arrest someone for violating a repealed law ... I think they'd have more sense than to subject themselves to a Federal lawsuit for an arrest for something which is not illegal ... which can't be held to be a "good faith" arrest, but is a violation of civil rights under Federal law.

It is not illegal to ignore that sign, unless you are in fact possessing a handgun under 4413(29ee) which is an impossibility at this point in time. If I was arrested for something which is not illegal, I'd be looking to make some money from the settlement I'd get...

Don't ignore purple paint though, under 30.05 Purple paint is valid enforceable notice under an existing (not repealed) law

That's my retired layman's opinion, IANAL

chasfm11 wrote:

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours used to be a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

I fixed it for you. I understand your point and, in principal, agree with it.

I'd be more inclined to approach this from a "likelyhood" standpoint.

1. If you carry past the sign, it is unlikely that you will be discovered. Concealed is concealed and I doubt that anyone has the specific duty to try to detect concealed handguns. I would be more concerned at a place like Grapevine Mills Mall (which has been discussed a lot on the forum recently and has the exact same worded sign) where there may be LEOs who are actually looking a the crowd.
2. If you were detected, it would be likely that you would arrested and taken to jail. I doubt that the LEO involved would see the difference in wording on the sign versus the TPC as an inhibitor to his actions. At least one PD has so stated. The general feeling is that the PD does not want to incur the ire of the owners of the property who put up the sign and that that feeling trumps the specificity of the TPC.

My own opinion is that at the local, State and Federal levels, laws have become more like guidelines and that they are open to interpretation much more so than most of us would prefer to admit. All too often, IMHO, those who violate the law are excused from prosecution because of the bias of organization charged with that prosecution. On the other side of that coin, those same organizations seem willing to "make an example." out of an otherwise law abiding citizen. I truly believe that with an unblemished criminal record, I have much more of a chance of being prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law than a career criminal and I personally believe that in many cases, it is to prove to me that I need to be subservient. If I carried a gun onto Federal property, even by accident, I have a greater risk of prosecution than someone who lit up a "mary jane" on that same property.

I agree with RPB, being arrested for carry past one of the old signs (or any non-compliant sign for that matter) would be about one of the best examples of false arrest I have ever seen.
I would be very interested in seeing data related to the number of arrest for 30.06 violations (where the 30.06 violation was the only charge). I would also like to know how many were successfully prosecuted. Of course I would want to know how many of those arrests involved non-compliant signs.
Anyone have that info handy or have access to it?

OK, IF I get a speeding ticket for NOT seeing the reduced speed sign.. The Judge would say "ignorance is not excuses of the law" and for me to pay the fine.. I can argue, my intent was not to speed

Same with the Hospital, ignorance is not excuses of the law, if it is NOT posted correctly the 30.06, than the law does not apply..

Works both ways..

A good lawyer that cost you a new home will get you off As for me, I've not seen very many CHL got to trial for this, the State would drop any charges before going to trial.. I would carry.. I would be CHL.. they would never know..

bat1 wrote:OK, IF I get a speeding ticket for NOT seeing the reduced speed sign.. The Judge would say "ignorance is not excuses of the law" and for me to pay the fine.. I can argue, my intent was not to speed

Same with the Hospital, ignorance is not excuses of the law, if it is NOT posted correctly the 30.06, than the law does not apply..

Works both ways..

A good lawyer that cost you a new home will get you off As for me, I've not seen very many CHL got to trial for this, the State would drop any charges before going to trial.. I would carry.. I would be CHL.. they would never know..

Analogy isn't on point ... a speed limit sign posted in compliance with the Traffic code is a regulatory sign, does not matter that you didn't notice/see it.

If a property owner posts a crayola sign, it has no binding effect.
They could post signs "All persons over 1000 years old must wear underwear only past this point" .... but there's no law against being clothed if 1) the sign does not apply/is not addressed to you and 2) there's no LAW against it .... they'd be fools to try to arrest you for something which is not illegal. I can't see needing a defense lawyer at all, no judge could/should convict a person of something not illegal ... as far as attorney fees, they'll get paid when I get paid I've assisted/drafted pleadings/handed all discovery etc in Federal cases before, perhaps the attorney will charge me less (out of what the hospital and police/city pays me) if I do the work.

snorri wrote:

Rex B wrote:Sorry, but ours is a government of laws, not of men or their feelings/intent.
Intent has no bearing at all on this. You are either in compliance with laws pertaining to your behavior in this location, or you are not.
it's black and white, you are legal to carry.

True but there's nothing wrong with going somewhere else instead, where the management is less bigoted and/or less ignorant.

Well, this is a hospital, not a Buffalo Wild Wings.

I would carry past this sign and have out at Grapevine Mills Mall.

If I recall correctly, Charles has said there has never been an arrest (or maybe never been a successful prosecution?) for a 30.06 violation.

Does it make a difference if it is a county hospital like Parkland or John Peter Smith if you can carry or not?

sjfcontrol wrote:If I recall correctly, Charles has said there has never been an arrest (or maybe never been a successful prosecution?) for a 30.06 violation.

Here is the only thread that I know about where a person was arrested for a 30.06 violation at a hospital. Ultimately, the DA did not prosecute.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&hilit=bedford&start=150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bat1 wrote:OK, IF I get a speeding ticket for NOT seeing the reduced speed sign.. The Judge would say "ignorance is not excuses of the law" and for me to pay the fine.. I can argue, my intent was not to speed

Same with the Hospital, ignorance is not excuses of the law, if it is NOT posted correctly the 30.06, than the law does not apply..

Works both ways..

Except for cops. They can be ignorant and arrest someone for an imaginary law but it will never be prosecuted as kidnapping, which is what it really is.

Mr.ViperBoa wrote:Does it make a difference if it is a county hospital like Parkland or John Peter Smith if you can carry or not?

It's not supposed to, but Parkland is a different situation. I don't know what the truth is with Parkland. It is a county hospital, which should make it government property and therefore we should be able to carry away. However, it is also a teaching hospital and attached to UTSWMC. I'll walk by incorrect signs and into any other hospital that is not posted, but not this one. I just don't know and can't afford to find out.

Running Arrow Bill wrote:IMO, whether the sign is "legal" or not, they have made their "intent" and you have been "given notice".

Better to keep your guns away from this place and save possible grief & inconvenience... Much easier and cheaper than defending your self in Court, IMO.

My opinion exactly! While the sign is questionable, the intent is clear. Did we mention that you'd get to plead your case before a locally elected judge?

That said, I think you should do what you think is right. To paraphrase Admiral Farragut, "...dang the torpedoes, full steam ahead". Who knows, you may even find some RKBA minded barrister who is willing to plead your case pro bono.