TexasCHLforum.com

kauboy wrote: How exactly does announcing oneself as carrying a loaded firearm in anyway pertain to 30.06 which is designed to prohibit "CONCEALED" carry of firearms?

You are saying that the 30.06 sign is unenforceable. I'm just saying you ought to tell door security that you do not recognize the enforceability of such signs and that since the property is government-owned, they have no basis to keep you out with your legally carried concealed handgun.

That's a little more up front than simply sneaking in with your well-concealed carry piece and kidding yourself into thinking that what you did was legal when all that really happened is that you didn't get "made".

kauboy wrote:The open carrying of arms can be forbidden by the property owner/lessee, regardless of who they are. And enforceable too. If asked to leave, and you refuse, you are most definitely committing UCW then.

Openly carrying a handgun is illegal per state law with a few exceptions. Owner permission has nothing to do with it. (Where did you ever get that idea?) In fact, the owner can't give effective permission even if they want to. They simply don't have the authority.

Telling someone you are carrying concealed is not the same thing as carrying openly.

To be carrying openly, the gun must be visible, not merely spoken of.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Telling someone you are carrying concealed is not the same thing as carrying openly.

To be carrying openly, the gun must be visible, not merely spoken of.

Well legally you are correct, but as a matter of practicality, ... Yelling out "I have a gun!" Lets out the little secret.

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Telling someone you are carrying concealed is not the same thing as carrying openly.

To be carrying openly, the gun must be visible, not merely spoken of.

Well legally you are correct, but as a matter of practicality, ... Yelling out "I have a gun!" Lets out the little secret.

Nobody is talking about "yelling out" that you have a gun. I am simply saying that people could calmly inform door security that they are CHL's, that they are carrying, that the signs are unenforceable due to the venue being owned by a government entity, and that they are going to insist on their right to enter.

And remember, I don't advise doing this. I advise people to honor the 30.06 signs.

I'm just pointing out that if people really believed what they were saying here, they could stand up for their rights instead of sneaking in with a well concealed gun figuring they won't get "made" and telling themselves, and us, later that they don't believe the signs to be valid.

Mike1951 wrote:

Nazrat wrote:Bravado does not equal legal. Please cite any case law that shows that carry at gun shows is legal.

Quite simply, 30.06 postings in government owned buildings are invalid, making it quite legal for a licensee to ignore.

Inevitably, someone will be arrested for this, but I do not accept that I am breaking any law when I carry concealed past a 30.06 at a gun show being held in a government owned building, as almost all are.

Mike, my statement was to the author who claimed that Texas case law allowed the open carry of firearms at gun shows. He failed to cite any case law but continued to state his opinion on the issue. I merely tried to point out that stating that the case law agrees with you requires you to post a case and not simply restate your premise.

However, I see that this issue may have resolved itself in my absence.

Nazrat wrote:However, I see that this issue may have resolved itself in my absence.

I'm not sure how 'resolved' it is.

It's quite obvious than frankie and I will never reach an agreement on our portion of the discussion.

Mike1951 wrote: It's quite obvious than frankie and I will never reach an agreement on our portion of the discussion.

Mike,

It seems to me you're letting a good opportunity slip by.

1) Go to a posted gun show in a government-owned venue leased by a private business entity (or the AA Center in Dallas).

2) Tell the door security that the 30.06 signs are not enforceable because the facility is government owned. Show them a copy of section 30.06 if you want and explain it to them.

3) Also tell them that any verbal notice they might offer is unenforceable as well, because the facility is government-owned and as such they have no authority to ban people with CHL's who are carrying guns.

4) Tell them that you have a CHL, are legally carrying concealed, and that you are insisting on your right to enter the premesis with your concealed handgun.

5) Then, pay the entrance fee and walk right past them on into the premesis, no matter what they say.

6) See what happens next.

At that point, you will have a pretty good idea which of us is interpreting the law correctly.

A bit later on, when your case comes up for trial, you will know beyond any doubt which of us is interpreting the law correctly.

Aren't you just a wee bit curious about it?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Mike1951 wrote: It's quite obvious than frankie and I will never reach an agreement on our portion of the discussion.

Mike,

It seems to me you're letting a good opportunity slip by.

1) Go to a posted gun show in a government-owned venue leased by a private business entity (or the AA Center in Dallas).

2) Tell the door security that the 30.06 signs are not enforceable because the facility is government owned. Show them a copy of section 30.06 if you want and explain it to them.

Why? Confrontation is to be avoided by us.
You wish to cause problems?
I'd suggest you never carry again.

3) Also tell them that any verbal notice they might offer is unenforceable as well, because the facility is government-owned and as such they have no authority to ban people with CHL's who are carrying guns.

Why?
Again, see comment above.

4) Tell them that you have a CHL, are legally carrying concealed, and that you are insisting on your right to enter the premesis with your concealed handgun.

I only have to tell an officer if he asks for identification.
If you would do such a thing, especially to a non-LEO, then you are a fool.
And announcing in public that you have a concealed handgun is still illegal.
§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
Since open carry is not legal in Texas, then alerting people to the fact that you have a handgun is certainly a failure to conceal.

If you are trying to claim that you would carry concealed, but not under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, then you should give that a shot and let us know how it turns out, from your cell.

5) Then, pay the entrance fee and walk right past them on into the premesis, no matter what they say.

6) See what happens next.

At that point, you will have a pretty good idea which of us is interpreting the law correctly.

A bit later on, when your case comes up for trial, you will know beyond any doubt which of us is interpreting the law correctly.

Wrong! I will have a good idea about the ineptitude of the people at the venue. You will still be wrong, they will still be wrong, and the court will decide I am right.
Wrongful arrest does not prove that 30.06 was enforceable.

Aren't you just a wee bit curious about it?

Also, it is completely within the law for an owner to grant me the legal ability to carry on their property:
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent...
I can be given consent by the owner which nullifies any 30.06 posting or UCW charge(until asked to leave of course).

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Nobody is talking about "yelling out" that you have a gun. I am simply saying that people could calmly inform door security that they are CHL's, that they are carrying, that the signs are unenforceable due to the venue being owned by a government entity, and that they are going to insist on their right to enter.

Not sure about that. Last year when my wife was recovering from a back injury we went to the nutcracker market @ reliant. My son was 6 months old, and they banned strollers. I argued left and right with the lady who called the cops. I was told they did not want to hear about the ADA or govt property. The rule was the rule. I was peeved. I told the lady I am going over the the wheelchair rental and putting him in one. She asked if my 6 month old was disabled. I said, "Well, he can't walk!"
What a Hillary.

A few shows back, as I was approaching George R. Brown, I met a gentleman in handcuffs escorted by two HPD officers. I had passed the other venues, so it was obvious that he was from the gun show.

When I got inside, I asked the officer what had happened and from the sketchy reply it appears he was just a regular attendee who decided to argue with the officer. I'll never know about what.

But I've seen enough not to start a discussion that you can't possibly win.

Seems to me the consensus is that if a venue owned by a government entity and leased by a private business entity (such as a gun show or the AA Center in Dallas) is posted with compliant 30.06 signs, you ain't gettin' in there carrying a gun unless you successfully hide the fact that you are carrying from them. (i.e. sneak it in)

If you tell them you are carrying a gun you will be denied netry.

If they wand you or pat you down and discover that you are carrying a gun you will be denied entry.

And no one is prepared (in terms of taking legal action) to do anything about it.

That sure sounds like an "enforceable" policy to me. In the de facto sense the signs are being enforced.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:venue owned by a government entity and leased by a private business entity

If you want to sway me, then provide your source for how the lease changes anything. If it's gov't owned, it can't be posted, PERIOD!!

Mike1951 wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:venue owned by a government entity and leased by a private business entity

If you want to sway me, then provide your source for how the lease changes anything. If it's gov't owned, it can't be posted, PERIOD!!

I've given up trying to sway people on this. My post above just summarized the de facto situation.

Anyone who thinks I am incorrect about this is invited to assert their rights to enter such venues, carrying a loaded and concealed handgun under the authority of a CHL, with door security at the venue of their choice.

Tell them that the signs are unenforceable and that you do not recognize their authority to keep CHL's out of a government-owned facility.

I would strongly advise against doing this because I think that anyone who does is going to get themselves in a lot of trouble.

But if you think I am wrong and have the courage of your convictions, feel free to push it to the limit.

Please post a report on what happens in the aftermath.

Nah! I'm through.

I'll be carrying.

And I'm glad you won't be.

Your statements show an irrationality that I'm not comfortable with.

Take care.

I thought this got locked???
What happened?

Anyways, if gov't owns it, or leases it from another, I will carry concealed just as the law allows.

And amen about the antagonist not carrying!

Mike1951 wrote:A few shows back, as I was approaching George R. Brown, I met a gentleman in handcuffs escorted by two HPD officers. I had passed the other venues, so it was obvious that he was from the gun show.

When I got inside, I asked the officer what had happened and from the sketchy reply it appears he was just a regular attendee who decided to argue with the officer. I'll never know about what.

But I've seen enough not to start a discussion that you can't possibly win.

Ah...I don't know...you may hear more about some day