TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:That is old language, and not a valid posting. However! As you may read, time after time, on this forum...you may be able to beat the rap, but not the ride. If the cop who responds is mostly familiar with the code, then those words seem pretty close to right. I keep reading that you will be alright as long as you do not remain after being told you can not carry; however, you do not have to be verbally told if the signage is correct. In the case of the sign you are talking about, I think you could go on in and be safe until told to leave. The problem, once again, is that the responding LEO may not know that the sign is not correct, and therefore not valid. Maybe you could save a picture of a valid sign, or the link to the DPS website page with the correct wording.

Just don't know if it is worth it or not.

The real problem in this case is that the Grapevine Police Department's official policy, per the Chief of the Grapevine PD, is that they will arrest you for trespass by a holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun on the basis of that signage if you are caught with a gun in that mall. Again, you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride per the department's official policy. The attitude of the corporation which led to the posting of the signs is based on ignorance of CHL. The police department's policy to enforce the signage is based on ignorance of the law. Ignorance has no place in my life; therefore, I don't go there. Because of that, I don't understand anybody's fascination with that mall.

I would venture to say this is not ignorance of the law (not knowing better) but rather outright defiance of the law. Much, much worse.

paulhailes wrote:

gimador wrote:this pic could help some!!!

Is this an old sign?

don't know about the signg or it's content...
but the picture was taken about a month ago.

JP171 wrote:this is the same idea as the City of Houston not recognizing the MPA, they will do as they please untill there is a case that stops the abusive and lackadaisical(SP?) nature of the agancies involved. I really don't want to be the test case or how ever you would like to put it, but it is what it is. they want to do as they please and the laws are being intrepreted as they choose as opposed to what is written with any updated changes. same idea as philly pa when they refused to recognize the pa state law on CHL's, the governor has to issue a centure(sp?) against the city of Philidelphia before they would recognize the state law and stop arresting those that had a chl and charging them with felony UCW

Can you provide instances? It was widely known that the former Harris County DA, Chuck Rosenthal, did not recognize the MPA, but he resigned in February 2008 after several controversies.

But since his resignation, I am not aware of any agencies failing to honor the MPA.

Curious, and not to hijack my own update, but: is it legal to post 30.06 at great Wolf Lodge?
As a hotel, it is your 'residence' for the length of your paid stay; so you can carry there. At least, that's what my last CHL class said.
Or is just the waterpark part posted? (not that you'd have an easy time CHL-ing while riding waterslides)
C-

cpileri wrote:Curious, and not to hijack my own update, but: is it legal to post 30.06 at great Wolf Lodge?
As a hotel, it is your 'residence' for the length of your paid stay; so you can carry there. At least, that's what my last CHL class said.
Or is just the waterpark part posted? (not that you'd have an easy time CHL-ing while riding waterslides)
C-

Thats a good question, I want to say that the sign would be enforceable but I am not sure, I hope someone else can answer the question with more certainty then I can.

MasterOfNone wrote: I would venture to say this is not ignorance of the law (not knowing better) but rather outright defiance of the law. Much, much worse.

Sorry but as TAM suggests, I don't think it is defiance at all. Let me suggest some examples:

An unnamed town near Ft. Worth has a bar which is the sole source of all of the town's calls for LEOs a couple of nights per week. It is a known hangout for drug deals even though there are uniformed LEOs stationed there on those evenings. One would think that the place would get shut down. Nope. The revenue it generates is important to the town so things like drunk patrons shooting guns in the air in the parking lot occasionally are simply overlooked.

In our town, the vast majority of traffic citations are for speeding. I can drive down the main road and personally see dozens of other types of violations but our LEOs apparently cannot see those same things. In fact, our town is notorious for its over enforcement of speeding as compared to surrounding towns. The practice was so bad that the mayor published an article in the town's newsletter denying it. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has noticed.

It's called selective enforcement. If the PD is told to go easy on a place of business, they do it. If the town wants the revenue, enforcement goes way up. If a place has an invalid 30.06 but the revenue is important to the town, the sign gets enforced - or at least the threat of enforcement is made. Like I keep saying, there are times when the laws are more like guidelines.

To be clear, all of this has nothing to do with the rank and file LEOs who are just trying to do the jobs that have been given to them. Behind the excesses or bending of the law are the politicians pulling the strings. I'm certainly not surprised by that.

paulhailes wrote:

cpileri wrote:Curious, and not to hijack my own update, but: is it legal to post 30.06 at great Wolf Lodge?
As a hotel, it is your 'residence' for the length of your paid stay; so you can carry there. At least, that's what my last CHL class said.
Or is just the waterpark part posted? (not that you'd have an easy time CHL-ing while riding waterslides)
C-

Thats a good question, I want to say that the sign would be enforceable but I am not sure, I hope someone else can answer the question with more certainty then I can.

In the meantime, the Gaylord Texan across the street is not posted (and they've got one catch-all liquor license for the whole property so their bars aren't even 51%). Please feel free to explain to the Great Wolf's GM why you're staying with their competitor.

chasfm11 wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote: I would venture to say this is not ignorance of the law (not knowing better) but rather outright defiance of the law. Much, much worse.

Sorry but as TAM suggests, I don't think it is defiance at all. Let me suggest some examples:

An unnamed town near Ft. Worth has a bar which is the sole source of all of the town's calls for LEOs a couple of nights per week. It is a known hangout for drug deals even though there are uniformed LEOs stationed there on those evenings. One would think that the place would get shut down. Nope. The revenue it generates is important to the town so things like drunk patrons shooting guns in the air in the parking lot occasionally are simply overlooked.

In our town, the vast majority of traffic citations are for speeding. I can drive down the main road and personally see dozens of other types of violations but our LEOs apparently cannot see those same things. In fact, our town is notorious for its over enforcement of speeding as compared to surrounding towns. The practice was so bad that the mayor published an article in the town's newsletter denying it. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has noticed.

It's called selective enforcement. If the PD is told to go easy on a place of business, they do it. If the town wants the revenue, enforcement goes way up. If a place has an invalid 30.06 but the revenue is important to the town, the sign gets enforced - or at least the threat of enforcement is made. Like I keep saying, there are times when the laws are more like guidelines.

To be clear, all of this has nothing to do with the rank and file LEOs who are just trying to do the jobs that have been given to them. Behind the excesses or bending of the law are the politicians pulling the strings. I'm certainly not surprised by that.

You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

MasterOfNone wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote: I would venture to say this is not ignorance of the law (not knowing better) but rather outright defiance of the law. Much, much worse.

Sorry but as TAM suggests, I don't think it is defiance at all. Let me suggest some examples:

An unnamed town near Ft. Worth has a bar which is the sole source of all of the town's calls for LEOs a couple of nights per week. It is a known hangout for drug deals even though there are uniformed LEOs stationed there on those evenings. One would think that the place would get shut down. Nope. The revenue it generates is important to the town so things like drunk patrons shooting guns in the air in the parking lot occasionally are simply overlooked.

In our town, the vast majority of traffic citations are for speeding. I can drive down the main road and personally see dozens of other types of violations but our LEOs apparently cannot see those same things. In fact, our town is notorious for its over enforcement of speeding as compared to surrounding towns. The practice was so bad that the mayor published an article in the town's newsletter denying it. Obviously, I'm not the only one who has noticed.

It's called selective enforcement. If the PD is told to go easy on a place of business, they do it. If the town wants the revenue, enforcement goes way up. If a place has an invalid 30.06 but the revenue is important to the town, the sign gets enforced - or at least the threat of enforcement is made. Like I keep saying, there are times when the laws are more like guidelines.

To be clear, all of this has nothing to do with the rank and file LEOs who are just trying to do the jobs that have been given to them. Behind the excesses or bending of the law are the politicians pulling the strings. I'm certainly not surprised by that.

You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

And selective enforcement is not MERELY selective, it is the very definition of defiance of the law. The law is NOT "guidelines" and should not be treated as such, which takes us all the way back to the DPS attorney I spoke to, years ago now, who suggested that I could volunteer to be a test case for invalid signage, and that they (DPS) considered any signage to be an attempt and "near enough" and would enforce it. When I asked if that meant 49mph in a 40 zone was an attempt she got all huffy and hung up, I mean, it's in the 40s, right?

MasterOfNone wrote:You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

For what it is worth, here is what a CHL's experience is more likely to be like with a GPD officer: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there? It seems to me that, given a regular line officer's reaction to my CHL in the above linked thread, perhaps the patrol officers there are no so likely to rush into any rash actions. I'm wondering if, despite the chief's bluster, if there were some reason for getting caught in an alleged trespass, if simply telling the officer that you entered by an entrance that wasn't posted (not all of them are) and that you didn't see any sign, might give him an excuse to simply turn you lose to leave the mall rather than going through all the hassle of processing an arrest and all its attendant paperwork.

I don't want to be the one to find out, and I abhor that place anyway so I'm never going to go there to begin with, but I suspect that the actual impact to the individual CHL holder might not be entirely commensurate with the chief's bluster.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:You provided good examples of selective enforcement. But one key element makes those examples differ from the GVM issue.
Selective enforcement involves choosing, from among enforceable offenses, which to pursue. In the case of a non-compliant sign, there is no enforceable offense to pursue. Therefore, it is not a matter of being selective; it is creating an offense where none exists.

For what it is worth, here is what a CHL's experience is more likely to be like with a GPD officer: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46443" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there? It seems to me that, given a regular line officer's reaction to my CHL in the above linked thread, perhaps the patrol officers there are no so likely to rush into any rash actions. I'm wondering if, despite the chief's bluster, if there were some reason for getting caught in an alleged trespass, if simply telling the officer that you entered by an entrance that wasn't posted (not all of them are) and that you didn't see any sign, might give him an excuse to simply turn you lose to leave the mall rather than going through all the hassle of processing an arrest and all its attendant paperwork.

I don't want to be the one to find out, and I abhor that place anyway so I'm never going to go there to begin with, but I suspect that the actual impact to the individual CHL holder might not be entirely commensurate with the chief's bluster.

I want to make some clarification. When I made my inquiry, I was told there is no official policy from the department. I was told that it is felt that the signage is sufficient notification and if you are found carrying there the officer will either tell you to leave or arrest you. It would be up to the officers discretion.

When i requested clarification from the Chief, he responded that I had my answer and he would respond no further to the request for information on the matter. So, depending on the officer, it may be hit or miss on being arrested or told to leave.

Keith B wrote:I want to make some clarification. When I made my inquiry, I was told there is no official policy from the department. I was told that it is felt that the signage is sufficient notification and if you are found carrying there the officer will either tell you to leave or arrest you. It would be up to the officers discretion.

When i requested clarification from the Chief, he responded that I had my answer and he would respond no further to the request for information on the matter. So, depending on the officer, it may be hit or miss on being arrested or told to leave.

Sounds like, for better or for worse, their policy is the same as the above mentioned DPS representative's.

jimlongley wrote:
And selective enforcement is not MERELY selective, it is the very definition of defiance of the law. The law is NOT "guidelines" and should not be treated as such, which takes us all the way back to the DPS attorney I spoke to, years ago now, who suggested that I could volunteer to be a test case for invalid signage, and that they (DPS) considered any signage to be an attempt and "near enough" and would enforce it. When I asked if that meant 49mph in a 40 zone was an attempt she got all huffy and hung up, I mean, it's in the 40s, right?

I guess we could use defiance of the the law or maybe even call it disregard for the law. I didn't use the example of the Chicago LEO who arrested the lady on her front lawn who was video taping a traffic stop. While he used the excuse that he didn't feel safe with her there, it was clearly a case where he was bending the law to create an infraction where none really existed. Using that as a guideline, someone's presence within an undefined proximity to any kind of police activity would constituent a safety issue. I don't see a difference between his interpretation of a safety issue with a video camera and enforcement of the invalid 30.06 sign. Both are twisting the circumstances.

I do believe that some of this discussion on 30.06 is more academic than realistic. TAM's comment that the chief in Grapevine may have more bluster than willingness to act is probably accurate. I still gauge my behavior using the "likely to happen" test. If I cannot be 100% sure of my concealment around an invalid 30.06 sign, I'm not going to risk it.

Let me leave you with another thought. After years of complaining about poor conditions at the Lake Grapevine marinas to the person with a contract from the COE to run them, a number of us went to the Ft. Worth COE office and complained to the officer in charge. Several of us got letters threatening us with a lawsuit by the marina proprietor citing tort law interference in their contract with the COE. I filled a complaint with the DPS over the conduct of the operator of a local impound lot and got a letter from his lawyer making a similar threat over tort interference in his contract with the DPS. In both cases, there is no way that I should have lost but it was going to cost me a lot of money to prove it. The law can be used in ways that those responsible for writing it never intended and the recovery process can be really expensive. You may label those situations any way that you choose.

The Annoyed Man wrote:This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there?

If the CHL holder is doing their job, the officer couldn't arrest them because s/he wouldn't know there was a gun at all. I think this is why there are so many "in theory, the law says <blah blah>, but there haven't been any court cases on it yet" scenarios with regard to CHLs... Not only are we relatively few in number, but our relevant actions are, by definition, concealed.

Dave2 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:This leads me to wonder..... Do the chief/ass't chief/watch commanders really drive home to their officers going on shift that they expect "violators" at the mall to be arrested for allegedly transgressing 30.06, or is that stuff merely what they tell people who go out of there way to ask? I mean, we have the chief's statements that they will do so, but has anybody actually ever heard of a CHL getting arrested for trespass there?

If the CHL holder is doing their job, the officer couldn't arrest them because s/he wouldn't know there was a gun at all. I think this is why there are so many "in theory, the law says <blah blah>, but there haven't been any court cases on it yet" scenarios with regard to CHLs... Not only are we relatively few in number, but our relevant actions are, by definition, concealed.

Most of the "what if's" I have seen are tied to the idea that you could be asked for ID by a LEO for some reason such as being a witness to a crime, or a victim of a crime, etc... although some are concerned with bulges or accidental exposure most are concerned about being identified due to circumstances beyond their control.