American Airlines Center, I have an answer

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
CHL/LEO
Senior Member
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Dallas

Post by CHL/LEO »

They may or may not arrest you if you do not leave, they count on us believing they will.
Let me assure you of one thing - if they ask you to leave and you refuse you will be arrested. Please make no mistake about that and don't play that card unless you want to be the "test case" regarding the legality of this issue. If you do great - and I hope you prevail, but don't cry uncle when the cuffs come out. Once that happens you're next stop will be at Lew Sterrett.

Again, I hope that the TSRA (of which I've been a Life Member for many years) can petition the Texas AG for a ruling on this so that no one has to challenge it through the criminal court system. (Charles, I don't even know if that can be done. I know the DAs and County Attorneys can do it but I'm not sure if private parties can do the same.) And even if CHL holders got a favorable ruling from the AG that doesn't prevent government entities from taking the AG to court if they don't like the outcome. Probably the only way this will get resolved is for the legislature to clarify the language of this, or for a case law ruling to come down.
"Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option."

Life Member - NRA/TSRA/GOA
User avatar
seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Post by seamusTX »

CHL/LEO wrote:(Charles, I don't even know if that can be done. I know the DAs and County Attorneys can do it but I'm not sure if private parties can do the same.)
I saw an unrelated issue where the Attorney General declined to issue an opinion at the request of a private party, but I suppose they could take a hint if they wanted to.

- Jim
Kalrog
Senior Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Leander, TX
Contact:

Post by Kalrog »

waffenmacht wrote:"Has anyone contacted either of these gentlemen to see what their take is after the fact? Maybe get a more reasoned email out of them instead of a quick answer in person? If not, I will probably send that email to Mr. Melsby tomorrow. "

Kalrog, please do. I would love to see if his story changes, or stays the same. I would like to see a letter sent asking for a clairification as to why CHL holder's are being turned away from entering this building when a non-sporting event is going on. Also, what is the official title of J.D. Handcock? (I wish I would have gotten this).

All any of these guys need to do is say I mis-quoted them. Getting thier position on tape or in writing is the way to go.
Email sent. I will keep the board apprised of the situation. Hopefully it is received as I intended it - polite with an honest question.
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Post by stevie_d_64 »

BTW, when is this "circus" event???
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
Kalrog
Senior Member
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Leander, TX
Contact:

Post by Kalrog »

stevie_d_64 wrote:BTW, when is this "circus" event???
I believe it WAS this past weekend.
GrillKing
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Post by GrillKing »

CHL/LEO wrote:
They may or may not arrest you if you do not leave, they count on us believing they will.
Let me assure you of one thing - if they ask you to leave and you refuse you will be arrested.
My point was that there is no legal grounds to arrest you, save perhaps criminal trespass with a defense to the prosecution. They may not arrest you. They may. I tend to lean to they would. The point is, that they have effectively circumvented the law until an AG opinion is issued or someone becomes a test case and wins.

I agree that regardless of the law and the intent of the law, you are on very thin ice if you are asked to leave and do not. I believe the ice is much thicker if you carry and are caught as long as you leave.

Me, I won't take the chance on either, the money I would spend to 'clear the confusion' would be better spent adding to the family that resides in my safe ;-)
GrillKing
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Post by GrillKing »

CHL/LEO wrote:[Let me assure you of one thing - if they ask you to leave and you refuse you will be arrested.
I agree that is likely, but on what grounds, what part of the Penal Code? Just curious....
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Post by stevie_d_64 »

And this be the quandry we are in...

We will not win at the gate with Johnny Wandman and Susie TicketWindowGirl...Nor will we win a debate with Mr. Iruntheshow...

We have a lot of clever people in our midst, and the battle will be one at the state level...

Once again into the breech we will go, and peel back another layer of the onion of dispair and agony of distrust of people who do not trust us who take self-defense seriously...

Started with the original bill, it became law on a lot of compramise...Then SB501 cleared up a lot of ambiguity, and got us where we are today...Along the way a lot of great bills became law that defined ane clarified a few other things which enhanced our ability to defend ourselves and there are a few people here (on this website) to thank directly for that...

Now we have this ever-present little annoying thing that seems to creep up every now and then...

Obviously we have to sharpen the pencils, and our wits, and come up with a solution or an offer our government can't refuse...I'm sure there will be a lot of support for a solution to this issue...

But challenging it through the legal system to me would be bad for someone to fall on the sword for the cause, when we can get it done, like we always have in the past through the legislature...

But I do support being aware, testing the waters, and respectfully challenging the system in the way our friend here did by asking and getting a clear picture above and beyond the gate guards and supervisors...Getting that far up was a good lick...And this effort paints a good picture to what we are up against...

Might not have ever been a big secret, but it illustrates a lot of things we need to be aware of...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
GrillKing
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Post by GrillKing »

stevie_d_64 wrote:But challenging it through the legal system to me would be bad for someone to fall on the sword for the cause, when we can get it done, like we always have in the past through the legislature...
Agree

stevie_d_64 wrote: But I do support being aware, testing the waters, and respectfully challenging the system in the way our friend here did by asking and getting a clear picture above and beyond the gate guards and supervisors...Getting that far up was a good lick...And this effort paints a good picture to what we are up against...
Agree. good job waffenmacht!
CHL/LEO
Senior Member
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Dallas

Post by CHL/LEO »

I agree that is likely, but on what grounds, what part of the Penal Code? Just curious....
If not for having a gun:

30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;


If for having a gun and you had a CHL:

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; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.


I know that there is the following exception but that's what this discussion is all about:

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
"Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option."

Life Member - NRA/TSRA/GOA
GrillKing
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Post by GrillKing »

CHL/LEO, I agree you are likely to be arrested on one of the two (30.05 / 30.06), I don't think either would hold up in court, but I'm not willing to be the test case.

You are right, it's all about the exception, but that really doesn't matter if you are in the back seat taking the ride.

Thanks,

Gary
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

GrillKing wrote:CHL/LEO, I agree you are likely to be arrested on one of the two (30.05 / 30.06), I don't think either would hold up in court, but I'm not willing to be the test case.

You are right, it's all about the exception, but that really doesn't matter if you are in the back seat taking the ride.

Thanks,

Gary
If you guys were as sure that I was wrong as you made it sound, why not be a test case? It's a slam dunk, right. Frankie's wrong. The leasee doesn't "own" it, the government does. And there's that great big exception.

So what's the problem?
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
Xander
Senior Member
Posts: 766
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Plano
Contact:

Post by Xander »

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
GrillKing wrote:CHL/LEO, I agree you are likely to be arrested on one of the two (30.05 / 30.06), I don't think either would hold up in court, but I'm not willing to be the test case.

You are right, it's all about the exception, but that really doesn't matter if you are in the back seat taking the ride.

Thanks,

Gary
If you guys were as sure that I was wrong as you made it sound, why not be a test case? It's a slam dunk, right. Frankie's wrong. The leasee doesn't "own" it, the government does. And there's that great big exception.

So what's the problem?
The problem is that being a test case costs thousands of dollars, and countless hours. Being right doesn't magically restore the time and money that it costs one to prove one's position. This is not the only arena of law in which the sheer resources available to the adversaries in question can be determining factors. And that assumes that being a "test case" proves anything. It doesn't. "Test cases" can continue to be prosecuted until the DA runs out of of desire, or the taxpayer dollars needed to prosecute "test cases". That'll could a long, long time from now. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean it's an easy row to hoe.
frankie_the_yankee
Banned
Posts: 2173
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
Location: Smithville, TX

Post by frankie_the_yankee »

Xander wrote: The problem is that being a test case costs thousands of dollars, and countless hours. Being right doesn't magically restore the time and money that it costs one to prove one's position. This is not the only arena of law in which the sheer resources available to the adversaries in question can be determining factors. And that assumes that being a "test case" proves anything. It doesn't. "Test cases" can continue to be prosecuted until the DA runs out of of desire, or the taxpayer dollars needed to prosecute "test cases". That'll could a long, long time from now. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean it's an easy row to hoe.
It shouldn't cost much in this case. Make bail and plead Not Guilty. At trial, just cite THE LAW like y'all did to me, explain that the city "owns" it, while the leasee merely "leases" it. Since the city (the true "owners") can't enforceably post it, you should be able to move for dismissal right then and there.

Since you are arguing the law, it should be no problem. The judge should know the law, right?

In fact, you could probably get the DA to drop the whole thing once you explain the law to him, and not even need to go to trial.

The law is the law, right?

Sounds quick, easy and cheap to me. The major expense would be researching the statute and case law applying to leaseholds, just what they are, etc.

If I believed as you do, I'd get 10 or 20 people to set themselves up as test cases at one event. This would also allow for cost sharing for that research I cited above.

It would proably even make the newspapers.

Think Ghandi.

As for me, I'll leave my gun in my car if I ever go there, at least until you guys blaze the trail for me.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
waffenmacht
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:46 pm

Post by waffenmacht »

First, I found that J.D. Hancock's official title is "vice president of safety for AA Center"

Some information I pulled right off of the American Airlines Center website.

http://www.americanairlinescenter.com/i ... /PageID/57

What security measures are being taken at the American Airlines Center?

We are doing everything humanly possible to make this facility safe and secure for our guests, employees and vendors. We work closely with local and federal law enforcement officials involved with homeland security and our security team is constantly reviewing our security procedures. In addition, our Vice President of Public Safety is in close contact with federal and local law enforcement officials and representatives with the NBA and NHL to determine appropriate security status.

What specific procedures will be in place when I visit the Center?

All guests visiting the American Airlines Center must pass through metal detectors when entering the facility. Large bags and backpacks are not allowed and all other bags will be inspected. Items such as firearms, knives and other weapons are prohibited.

How can fans assist Center personnel with its security procedures?

Patrons should arrive early and avoid bringing prohibited items and any unnecessary items that may activate the metal detectors. Upon entry into the facility remove all items from your pockets including cell phones, pagers, and car keys. Also, have purses and small bags open and ready for inspection. If at anytime you observe and unusual behavior by other guests, please notify your section usher so that we may investigate

Who operates the facility?

American Airlines Center is managed and operated by the Center Operating Company, which has a lease with the City of Dallas for 30 years, starting in 2001.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”