TexasCHLforum.com

Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

TAM, relax man. I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.
Should we just sit back and be ok with the police acting out of accordance with the law just because they do many other things well??

Scott in Houston wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:

C-dub wrote:Old signs with old wording same as GVMM.

Yep. To my knowledge, Katy PD hasn't made a comment about arresting there.
They might, but they haven't said as such with the "in your face" attitude of the police up there.

Wow. People keep making very general comments beating up on my city's PD, based on a chief's misguided approach to 30.06.

Once again..... READ THIS THREAD. THAT is what CHL interactions are really like with most of my city's PD.....the chief's attitude notwithstanding. I really wish people would cut my police some slack. We actually have a great department, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for its officers. Everyone else should be so lucky as to have the caliber of officers we enjoy here in Grapevine.

TAM, relax man. I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.
Should we just sit back and be ok with the police acting out of accordance with the law just because they do many other things well??

Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit. And I'm not wound up. I just feel the need to defend a very good PD from broad brush character attacks based on no facts. No, Grapevine is not a perfect town. It's a pretty good town, but not perfect. Never even seen or heard of a perfect town.....in this life. But I have had numerous interactions with Grapevine's officers, and I've never once been disappointed with any of the ones I've met.....including the most recent incident a few days ago when I had to show my IDs to an officer responding to a burglary call at my church, and he didn't even ask me if I was armed, or where my gun was. He was totally cool with an armed citizen.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit.

What I want to beat up on is anyone in Government who makes such a statement that appears to be obvious abuse of power of almost worse, exercise of power out of pure ignorance.
I haven't picked on one officer. In fact, my post was clearly responding to the (as I said), "in your face" attitude of the chief.
When someone in power says they're going to, in effect, change the law because they feel like it, I have a problem with that. Period. We're a "nation of laws not men."
I love my local Sugar Land PD. They've helped me out of a scrape, and I'm forever grateful, but I guarantee, I won't be defending their chief if he said something so obviously out of line with the law. It's our job as citizens to make sure government doesn't over step its boundaries, and even though this may appear to be minor, it's still overstepping.

Just because they haven't arrested anyone means nothing to me. It's the statement he made, and yes, he deserves to be beat up over it. As soon as he says, "Oops, I was wrong. Unless the signs are valid, we won't arrest," it's over. Until then, if he catches grief for it... good.

Again, I have no beef with an individual officer or any officers in the GVPD, but everything I said was directed to the chief, his policy, his attitude, and his apparent direction. I can't imagine not seeing how he deserves grief for it.

Scott in Houston wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Despite the chief's silly attitude, can you document even one instance of a beat officer mistreating a CHL holder in Grapevine, even at the Grapevine Mills Mall? No, you can't. With all due respect, you're speaking from a position of ignorance, as in, not in possession of any relevant facts specific to Grapevine's arrests of CHL holders. The chief says he intends to enforce an erroneous policy. But that policy hasn't, in fact, been enforced. And if you go back and read Keith B's posts (it was Keith who exchanged communications with the chief), Keith said that the chief says he will leave it to the officer's discretion on the scene whether to actually arrest anyone. Been living here for a tad over 5 years, and there have been no such arrests.

But you want to beat up on the officers....for what? For NOT having enforced the stupid policy? Please.

You just want to beat up on the cops a little bit.

What I want to beat up on is anyone in Government who makes such a statement that appears to be obvious abuse of power of almost worse, exercise of power out of pure ignorance.
I haven't picked on one officer. In fact, my post was clearly responding to the (as I said), "in your face" attitude of the chief.
When someone in power says they're going to, in effect, change the law because they feel like it, I have a problem with that. Period. We're a "nation of laws not men."
I love my local Sugar Land PD. They've helped me out of a scrape, and I'm forever grateful, but I guarantee, I won't be defending their chief if he said something so obviously out of line with the law. It's our job as citizens to make sure government doesn't over step its boundaries, and even though this may appear to be minor, it's still overstepping.

Just because they haven't arrested anyone means nothing to me. It's the statement he made, and yes, he deserves to be beat up over it. As soon as he says, "Oops, I was wrong. Unless the signs are valid, we won't arrest," it's over. Until then, if he catches grief for it... good.

Again, I have no beef with an individual officer or any officers in the GVPD, but everything I said was directed to the chief, his policy, his attitude, and his apparent direction. I can't imagine not seeing how he deserves grief for it.

Here is what you said:

Scott in Houston wrote: I'm sure they're fine police, but they deserve to be beat up some (at least the chief does and he "is" the lead man), over their cavalier, forget what the law says, we're doing this anyway attitude.
I don't care how great they handle other scenarios, but for this particular scenario, every bit of grief they're given, they deserve.

I merely react to what you wrote. They're being given grief, on THIS board, for NOT having enforced a stupid policy at the street level, but you maintain that they deserve that grief.

You're flat wrong about that. You should stop digging that hole you find yourself in.

Well, you got me on pronouns. My comments were still obviously targeted at police chief's comments and the policy put in place.
We'll agree to disagree. I'm not in any hole btw. I still stand by everything I've said. If the chief or any of his officers arrest *KNOWING* that these signs aren't valid, they deserve a LOT of grief. And stating that they would do just that is a problem.
Because they haven't yet, really isn't the issue.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The Grapevine PD considers the signs to be compliant, and they will arrest you if you are caught inside the mall with your gun. You may beat the time, but you're not going to beat the ride. Our moderator Mike B has had several exchanges with the Chief of the GPD about it, and he has it in writing.

I have lived in Grapevine for 5 years now. I avoided that place like the plague anyway because I despise mall shopping, but I have managed to live happily and conduct all of my affairs without ever feeling the need to go to that mall in the more than 3 years that I've had my CHL. Pretty much every single thing that can be found there can also be found elsewhere in Grapevine, without having to get my panties in a twist over the unfriendly signs at the entrances.

And, from where I live in Grapevine, right on the borders of Euless and Colleyville near Hall Johnson Rd and the 121, The Northeast Mall in Hurst, 17 minutes from my house, takes the same amount of time to get to, and it isn't posted. Guess where I go when I need a mall store.

TAM...it was your post which kicked this off...you clearly said that the police (not just the chief) would arrest us for NOT violating the law because they wanted to "enforce" their will ABOVE the law...along with the "beat the time...beat the ride" dire warning...

...I have earned the right to "beat on" police who take a position against citizens and the law...and who advertise that they'll disregard the law to oppress the citizens...I've never known a cop who was ALL good or ALL bad...you get kudos for the good you do(sometimes) and "beat on," if you choose to put it that way, for the wrong you do...this department is led and represented by its Chief...and he OFFICIALLY speaks for all of them...and his ignorant redneck attitude regarding the CHL law at GVM is WRONG...I don't speak to all the good he does in other areas...he doesn't get a pass because he's a great guy...and the beat officers live with what he represents...he's the Chief...he needs to man up and admit he's been wrong, make an official policy statement that his force will enforce the CHL laws AS WRITTEN...and just do it right...and quit causing problems by being hard-headed...Scott in Houston is simply taking the facts as you presented them...and expressing an informed opinion...I'm with him on this one...he doesn't have to document any cases he knows where someone's been arrested...he has it on the highest authority that that's the way it is there...your post...where you didn't mention that in 5 years noone's been arrested...you can't yell that the sky's falling, then fuss at folks for ducking...

...as Chief of Police, he doesn't have the RIGHT to state that his policy and his officers don't have to line up with OUR law...his authority has been given to him to enforce the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...so he should stick his beak into the lawbooks and form his official policies from what is written there...no wiggle room...I know you've said before you solve the problem by just shopping elsewhere...your choice...but when the Chief starts "enforcing" a law that affects you...because he got away with this incidence of violating the law in policy statement, whether or not in actually carrying it out...it'll pinch you...we're in the political mess we're in as a nation because we didn't challenge them the first time they tried something on us that was wrong...and they've gotten from the sidewalk all the way up to the front door, in some cases...I'm for stopping them when they start it...history shows what happens when they get away with it...so he may be a prince...crime may be down...his officers may all be like the one you met at the church...but he's dead wrong on this issue...and has earned his "beating"...and his men share the licks...that's the way life is...

Fine....

Y'all beat the crap out of them all you want. I'm not going to engage in it.

I think this whole issue is a catch 22.
This is what we know:
1. The mall is posted incorrectly
2. The Chief has told individuals that he considers the signs valid but it is up to the officer what he wants to do.
3. There have been no arrests for a 30.06 violation at this mall or any other that is posted incorrectly or correctly.

So, let's look at some possibilities:
1. The officers know the signs are invalid and are still willing to arrest someone but have not been aware that someone is carrying.
2. Same as above but officers are not aware the signs are invalid.
3. Officers are aware that the signs are invalid and have noticed that people carry (printing, accidental exposure) but do not take action because they know there has been no violation.

Let's assume that 1 or 2 is true. A CHL bends over to tie his shoe and officer sees part of a holster and ask CHL if he is carrying. Answer is yes. Officer makes arrest. CHL spends 2 grand on lawyer to show the Chief that he is wrong and CHL is released. Chief blames the officer for not knowing the law and Chief ensures public that his officers will receive training on the subject. Chief tells mall signs are invalid and will not be enforced. Mall replaces invalid signs with valid signs. Now mall is correctly posted and officers are looking to prove they know how to enforce the law.

Or, no arrests are made but we want to make sure the Chief knows he is wrong so we push the subject till he comes to terms with it. Chief tells mall signs are invalid and will not be enforced. Mall replaces signs with valid signs and we can no longer carry.

Or, we can leave well enough alone. As long as the signs are invalid we can make a choice about what we are comfortable with and still be on the right side of the law (even if we end up laying out some cash to prove it). Some will choose to legally carry past the sign. Others will choose to disarm and enter the mall. Others will choose to go elsewhere. But at this point we still have a choice. If enough noise is made you will no longer have a choice because the invalid signs will be replaced will proper signs.

I for one don't care either way when it comes to this mall. I do however want to avoid any situation that results in more valid postings in the state.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Fine....

Y'all beat the crap out of them all you want. I'm not going to engage in it.

I don't recall anyone asking you to.

I don't think this is much different than the chief at some university PD saying armed people on campus would be shot. I mean, they haven't shot any professors yet for having a gun in their car, so what's the problem?

jmra wrote:I think this whole issue is a catch 22.
This is what we know:
1. The mall is posted incorrectly
2. The Chief has told individuals that he considers the signs valid but it is up to the officer what he wants to do.
3. There have been no arrests for a 30.06 violation at this mall or any other that is posted incorrectly or correctly.

So, let's look at some possibilities:
1. The officers know the signs are invalid and are still willing to arrest someone but have not been aware that someone is carrying.
2. Same as above but officers are not aware the signs are invalid.
3. Officers are aware that the signs are invalid and have noticed that people carry (printing, accidental exposure) but do not take action because they know there has been no violation.

Let's assume that 1 or 2 is true. A CHL bends over to tie his shoe and officer sees part of a holster and ask CHL if he is carrying. Answer is yes. Officer makes arrest. CHL spends 2 grand on lawyer to show the Chief that he is wrong and CHL is released. Chief blames the officer for not knowing the law and Chief ensures public that his officers will receive training on the subject. Chief tells mall signs are invalid and will not be enforced. Mall replaces invalid signs with valid signs. Now mall is correctly posted and officers are looking to prove they know how to enforce the law.

Or, no arrests are made but we want to make sure the Chief knows he is wrong so we push the subject till he comes to terms with it. Chief tells mall signs are invalid and will not be enforced. Mall replaces signs with valid signs and we can no longer carry.

Or, we can leave well enough alone. As long as the signs are invalid we can make a choice about what we are comfortable with and still be on the right side of the law (even if we end up laying out some cash to prove it). Some will choose to legally carry past the sign. Others will choose to disarm and enter the mall. Others will choose to go elsewhere. But at this point we still have a choice. If enough noise is made you will no longer have a choice because the invalid signs will be replaced will proper signs.

I for one don't care either way when it comes to this mall. I do however want to avoid any situation that results in more valid postings in the state.

I have been lurking this site for about three months now...oddly enough, I got my CHL three months ago. This thread prompted me to join the forum.

My wife has been bugging me to take my daughter to the Lego Land at the Grapevine mall. I was kinda ticked that potentially carrying there could get me arrested...so I have been considering making a call to a high school buddy that sits outside the Chiefs office (all day long). After reading your post, I think you are right. Leave the issue alone, carry at the mall, and deal with it if I get made. Calling my buddy and having him point out to the Chief that the signage is not legal could cause the mall to actually get a legal sign. What good would that do? If anything, my buddy could probably get me out of jail fairly quickly...and it would make for a great story the next time we play golf.

Easy way to settle this....

....if the Chief is the only one who goes to GMM and arrests CHL holders for legal carry, then we can limit our scorn to the Chief only.....

....if the rank-&-file officers also participate in these arrests, then we're justified to focus our scorn on them, too.....


....happy?.....

Shinesintx wrote:.....point out to the Chief that the signage is not legal could cause the mall to actually get a legal sign.

The Chief and I have already had a conversation. He is non-commital on if they will or won't arrest. It will be up to the responding officer as to how they handle the issue. So, there is no 'formal' policy in Grapevine on this, which is why it is still anyones guess as to what would actually happen if you are found carrying.