Page 1 of 2
Fort Worth Stock show posted
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:23 pm
by chadster1
I went to the Fort Worth Stock show today and it was properly posted with the 30.06 signage at every entrance I saw. The State Fair allows CHL but the Stock show does not.
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:31 pm
by KBCraig
Who owns the building and grounds?
Kevin
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:31 pm
by AG-EE
I think the city of Ft. Worth owns the Will Rogers Center. If so, the signs are illegal.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:45 pm
by txinvestigator
AG-EE wrote:I think the city of Ft. Worth owns the Will Rogers Center. If so, the signs are illegal.
The signs would not be "illegal" just non-enforceable.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:11 pm
by AG-EE
The act of posting the signs is un-enforceable, but if they actually denied entrance to someone with a CHL, wouldn't that be illegal?
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:47 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
AG-EE wrote:The act of posting the signs is un-enforceable, but if they actually denied entrance to someone with a CHL, wouldn't that be illegal?
That's an interesting question; I wish I had a good answer. It might be a §1983 civil rights violation, but that's not my area of practice and I'm not sure. Just thinking out loud, if a CHL was told they couldn't enter but did so anyway and was arrested, then they may well have a §1983 action against the arresting officer and his/her agency. Again, I'm not certain.
By no means am I suggesting this course of action!!
Regards,
Chas.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:33 pm
by stevie_d_64
Charles L. Cotton wrote:By no means am I suggesting this course of action!!
I agree...I have seen enough cows in my short 41 years in this world...
Sure is a quandry to be in..."Legally posted, but not enforcable"
Like Roy D Mercer says..."How big a boy are you!"
Will Rogers Exhibit hall
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:53 pm
by Trainman
A couple of months ago I went to the gun show at Will Rogers Exhibit Hall. At the admission table next to the LEOs checking weapons was a large sign that had non-30.06 language stating no concealed weapons allowed - including concealed licensed holders. So I went back to my vehicle and locked it up and went back in. I have always wondered about that. Did anyone else notice the sign?
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:29 pm
by chadster1
AG-EE wrote:The act of posting the signs is un-enforceable, but if they actually denied entrance to someone with a CHL, wouldn't that be illegal?
They were not searching people at the entrances. I could of carried and not had a problem (concealed means concealed) but I did not want to become a test case.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:19 am
by AG-EE
I suppose if the rodeo is happening at the time, that would constitute a pro sporting event though, but just during stock show times I believe it would be legal to carry.
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 4:02 pm
by Arock
I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. What does "§1983 action" mean?
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:54 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Arock wrote:I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. What does "§1983 action" mean?
It's a legal slang term refering to a federal civil rights violation/suit.
Regards,
Chas.
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:34 pm
by Arock
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Arock wrote:I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. What does "§1983 action" mean?
It's a legal slang term refering to a federal civil rights violation/suit.
Regards,
Chas.
OK. But how can it be a federal violation of a state statute?
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:54 pm
by da.suxor
AG-EE wrote:I think the city of Ft. Worth owns the Will Rogers Center. If so, the signs are illegal.
Why? Is a city or state owned location unable to ban CHL holders?
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:20 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Arock wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Arock wrote:I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. What does "§1983 action" mean?
It's a legal slang term refering to a federal civil rights violation/suit.
Regards,
Chas.
OK. But how can it be a federal violation of a state statute?
If a law enforcement officer arrests someone for violation of any statute and the officer knows or should know the "suspect" hasn't violated the law, then they have violated the person's civil rights. They have wrongfully deprived a person of liberty under color of law. This can also be true if the arrest is made pursuant to an arrest warrant, if the officer knows the warrant is defective or was obtained unlawfully. This is a gross over-simplification, as there are numerous factors to consider.
There is a 6th Cir. Court of Appeals case dealing with a suit against an officer that arrested a person knowing the person likely had a defense to prosecution. This is unusual, as defenses must be proven in court and heretofore were not considered to prohibit an officer from making an arrest. The Court held arresting someone who probably had a defense (i.e. CHL, LEO, traveling, etc.) was a civil rights violation. I'll try to find the case and post it. I am not familiar with all of the facts of the case, but it's potentially significant in HB823 cases, if the 5th Cir. adopts the decision. I’m not at all sure it will, but Chuck Rosenthal may provide the opportunity to find out. Unfortunately, it won’t be him sued, but the arresting officer that relied upon his instructions.
Regards,
Chas.