TexasCHLforum.com

Flightmare wrote:

treadlightly wrote:My favorite gunbuster sign is in the Freddy's burger joint in Waco. It says something like, "For the comfort of all our customers, we respectfully ask that you not openly carry firearms in Freddy's."

I saw a similar sign outside of a Taco Cabana recently.

I see them a lot at the local fast-casual dining establishments around me.

OP: Please, take the time to notify the appropriate authorities regarding this rogue cop's declaration of arrest when he knows no law has been broken.

All this talk about concealed is concealed or if asked to leave if discovered carrying isn't germane.

This cop's attitude needs authoritative instruction of an arrest he isn't authorized to make. Period.

Let me be a bit absurd to further make my point: How about if this same cop stated he'd arrest you if you didn't stop every time before crossing RR tracks, much like school buses are required to do, because HE thinks you should and if not, why he'd arrest you if he witnessed you simply driving over the tracks without stopping first.

Yeah, that sounds a bit of a stretch and so's his attitude regarding non-compliant, no gun signs, but would arrest you if you walked past one and later discovered to be carrying.

This is only one thing you know about him that's wrong. What else might he be in the wrong about and arrest an innocent for what he doesn't like...?

Abraham wrote:OP: Please, take the time to notify the appropriate authorities regarding this rogue cop's declaration of arrest when he knows no law has been broken.

All this talk about concealed is concealed or if asked to leave if discovered carrying isn't germane.

This cop's attitude needs authoritative instruction of an arrest he isn't authorized to make. Period.

Let me be a bit absurd to further make my point: How about if this same cop stated he'd arrest you if you didn't stop every time before crossing RR tracks, much like school buses are required to do, because HE thinks you should and if not, why he'd arrest you if he witnessed you simply driving over the tracks without stopping first.

Yeah, that sounds a bit of a stretch and so's his attitude regarding non-compliant, no gun signs, but would arrest you if you walked past one and later discovered to be carrying.

This is only one thing you know about him that's wrong. What else might he be in the wrong about and arrest an innocent for what he doesn't like...?

Cops like this give other cops a bad name and are the cause of some/much of the racial discord evident in our country today. Just sayin'...

If you don't want to notify Internal Affairs at his agency to help them avoid a lawsuit for false arrest, because maybe they deserve one, at least please notify the DPS training division so they can correct his flawed instruction for future students. Those innocent LTC students don't deserve to suffer a bad a instructor.

Nutcracker wrote:If you don't want to notify Internal Affairs at his agency to help them avoid a lawsuit for false arrest, because maybe they deserve one, at least please notify the DPS training division so they can correct his flawed instruction for future students. Those innocent LTC students don't deserve to suffer a bad a instructor.

It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

As for going after the instructor/LEO for his statement, until he actually follows though with an arrest, it's just hearsay and I seriously doubt the department would do anything pre-arrest either.

Keith B wrote:

Nutcracker wrote:If you don't want to notify Internal Affairs at his agency to help them avoid a lawsuit for false arrest, because maybe they deserve one, at least please notify the DPS training division so they can correct his flawed instruction for future students. Those innocent LTC students don't deserve to suffer a bad a instructor.

It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

That's bizarre. Is it because the blind are leading the blind or is it a malicious us vs them agenda? I'm pretty sure DPS doesn't teach that any 'no guns' sign prohibits police from entering with a gun unless they have a warrant.

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.

Vol Texan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.

As they said in the January 2016 class. One instructor even stated that he knew a case where an individual was convicted for violating an invalid sign. No details of course.

This problem needs to be solved at DPS first.

Vol Texan wrote:I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.

Are they teaching that it also applies to LEO or only applies to LTC?

Vol Texan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.

Who needs legislators when we can have DPS write the laws. I still think a false arrest charge would be an easy win for an attorney in a case like this.

Oh Crap!! All this time and we find out we've been doing it wrong!!

So...I'm guessing this means we can't enter any establishment with a posted gun sign of any kind without risking "The Ride"?

Vol Texan wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Keith B wrote:
It will not do any good. DPS tells instructors that any 'no guns' sign is notification, legal or not, so they will not take action on an instructor teaching this.

If this is accurate, it's very disappointing. It's even worse than an individual officer making up his own laws and interpretations. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know who told Keith B this, but I have not experienced any such notification from the DPS.

I just finished up the New LTC Instructor course today. I can tell you first hand that what Keith said is exactly what we were told - and this was reinforced by multiple instructors.

They told us in no uncertain terms that (a) gunbuster signs, (b) “No Guns” signs, and (c) a sign containing only the term “30.06” (with no other accompanying verbiage) all demonstrate the property owner’s intent, so therefore all have the force of law.

I am not disputing the truth of what you’re saying, but I cannot accept that DPS is getting away with this! When is the legislature and/or the AG going to make it plain to them that the letter of the law is the only thing that has force of law, and not these goofy interpretations?