Constitutional Carry confusion leading to increased arrests in the Lone Star State?

[Wallace Dunn]

and pray tell what is unlawful carry when TEXAS HASPERMITLESS CARRY?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

I would guess most people are caught under this provision:
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating; or
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

 

[easy rider]

EXACTLY what anyone would have expected when the government opened carry to almost all without ANY instruction on the rules, regulations and laws. I saw a guy in Granbury walking into the polling place with a glock... greeter must have said something because he walked back out then re-entered without the weapon. YES signage was present however even without signs there is a long list of firearm prohibited areas of which most people without LTC are unaware. Ignorance of the Law remains NO EXCUSE!

Yeah, but being a dick about arresting someone not realizing they were wrong is another thing. While I do pay attention to when and where I can carry, everyone has brain farts, and I hope when I do, I will have someone point it out rather than go to the extreme. Good on the people manning that polling station.

 

[glenbo]

A couple of days ago I had to go to a mall for the first time in about 20 years. There is a sign on the door or window that says firearms are prohibited, they have trained security guards and firearm sniffing dogs. I believe that's all it says, I didn't see anything else. I assume that's enough to make lawful gun carriers from carrying.

 

[jordanmills]

Yeah, but being a dick about arresting someone not realizing they were wrong is another thing. While I do pay attention to when and where I can carry, everyone has brain farts, and I hope when I do, I will have someone point it out rather than go to the extreme. Good on the people manning that polling station.

Lots of cops have authority issues and can't admit that they were wrong after they've been running their mouths. Kind of like anyone else, really, except that most people can't destroy your life on a whim.

Also that's another reason that it's good to have an LTC. Most prohibited places effectively have no penalty until you are personally advised to leave. Not that you should make a habit of it, but it's nice to have some rationality to it.

 

[rotor]

A couple of days ago I had to go to a mall for the first time in about 20 years. There is a sign on the door or window that says firearms are prohibited, they have trained security guards and firearm sniffing dogs. I believe that's all it says, I didn't see anything else. I assume that's enough to make lawful gun carriers from carrying.

Possible the sign would have been valid for permitless carry but not LTC. Now if the security guards stopped you and said leave that's valid. You leave or you are trespassing.

 

[leVieux]

>
IDK for sure where this applies, but the Federal Courts in New Orleans told the LA gunbanners that they couldn’t enforce any school gun-free zone unless / until they produced detailed maps of exactly where the boundaries were.

So far, no map and no serious reply. . . . . . .

Also, IANAL; but read yesterday that the SCOTUS has told N Y State that their ban of “guns in churches” is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

So, Quien Sabe ?

leVieux
.

 

[leVieux]

OK, but, what ever happened to “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” ?

Sounds like one helluva lot of “infringing” to me !

leVieux
.

 

[Eli]

These blue NOTICE signs are no longer "required" by TABC law, but many stores still have them posted. Effective Sep. 1st, 2020.

There's still liquor stores in my area with 30.06 and 30.07 signs up because Bloomturd's MAIG sent them out with official-looking letters years ago, and the management thinks they're legally required to display them.

Eli

 

[seeker_two]

Bigger question I have is.....what LEOs are making these arrests? If it's something tacked onto a drug or DUI charge, I can understand. But, if these LEOs are arresting otherwise clean citizens over this.....

 

[Coyote9]

Yeah, but being a dick about arresting someone not realizing they were wrong is another thing. While I do pay attention to when and where I can carry, everyone has brain farts, and I hope when I do, I will have someone point it out rather than go to the extreme. Good on the people manning that polling station.

Also the officer who was courteous to me and just told me to leave. Great guy

 

[leVieux]

I don't have much hope for the signs any time soon, but it would be nice to get the rats nest straightened out. And maybe get that condition on volunteer emergency services personnel removed (46.15(a)(10)(B)).

What I'd really like to see a push on is reducing the number of firearms stolen from vehicles by eliminating "gun free zones" of all kinds.

>
Agreed !

I still wonder just how those “gun free zones” could be consistent with “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” ?

leVieux
.

 

[toddnjoyce]

These blue NOTICE signs are no longer "required" by TABC law, but many stores still have them posted. Effective Sep. 1st, 2020.

It’s not that blue signs are no longer required. The ABC statute on blue signs was repealed as part of HB1927, therefore the signs have no statutory validity and are meaningless except to prove the ABC licensee is in violation of the code.

Just like those places that lost their red sign status due to holding an FB license, yet kept the red sign up.

 

[leVieux]

It’s not that blue signs are no longer required. The ABC statute on blue signs was repealed as part of HB1927, therefore the signs have no statutory validity and are meaningless except to prove the ABC licensee is in violation of the code.

Just like those places that lost their red sign status due to holding an FB license, yet kept the red sign up.

>
Now, I’m really confused. . . .
.

 

[toddnjoyce]

>
Now, I’m really confused. . . .
.

How so?

 

[leVieux]

How so?

:>

”It’s not that blue signs are no longer required.” sounds like a double negative.

It’s been about 14 years since I’ve lived in Texas, so I’m not up-to-date on signage regulations. But I do visit frequently and keep a TX CHL/CWP/CL, or whatever it is now known as.

If you could, please post a link to the current regs.

When I did live in Texas, especially ”Deep South Texas”, I frequently noticed that the then-authorized signs were often not displayed properly. Indeed, one bistro on SPI had the sign where it could not be seen from the entry, bar, dining area, or deck.

Thanks,
leVieux
.

 

[toddnjoyce]

:>

”It’s not that blue signs are no longer required.” sounds like a double negative.

It’s been about 14 years since I’ve lived in Texas, so I’m not up-to-date on signage regulations. But I do visit frequently and keep a TX CHL/CWP/CL, or whatever it is now known as.

If you could, please post a link to the current regs.

When I did live in Texas, especially ”Deep South Texas”, I frequently noticed that the then-authorized signs were often not displayed properly. Indeed, one bistro on SPI had the sign where it could not be seen from the entry, bar, dining area, or deck.

Thanks,
leVieux
.

The original statement that got the blue sign brought up was that in Texas, on cannot enter a liquor store without am LTC. That statement was questioned and Mr Dunn introduced the blue sign, stating the sign is not required.

My statement was that the law the created the blue sign, it’s text, and penalties associated with it was repealed. The state cannot require something that is not in the statutes. Going one step further, those places holding a liquor license are required to follow the effective statutes for notifications to the public.

Because that notification no longer exists in law, anywhere it’s displayed is violating the law and jeopardizing their liquor license.

 

[leVieux]

The original statement that got the blue sign brought up was that in Texas, on cannot enter a liquor store without am LTC. That statement was questioned and Mr Dunn introduced the blue sign, stating the sign is not required.

My statement was that the law the created the blue sign, it’s text, and penalties associated with it was repealed. The state cannot require something that is not in the statutes. Going one step further, those places holding a liquor license are required to follow the effective statutes for notifications to the public.

Because that notification no longer exists in law, anywhere it’s displayed is violating the law and jeopardizing their liquor license.

>
Excellent summarization / explanation; / Thanks.
.

 

[Coyote9]

>
Now, I’m really confused. . . .
.

That is not how I understand the new law, If I write in crayon "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" then anyone other than LEO is in violation, even a verbal warning to leave if carrying a firearm is valid.
Yes you have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms, but NOT on my private property or place of business without my permission.
Also I do not want you or anyone else carrying firearms into my grand children's school or a court room if I am on jury duty ... some common sense is required.

 

[MountainGirl]

@toddnjoyce

Just to confirm my understanding of your post - (sorry so pablum)

1.There was a law regarding carry into liquor stores
2.There was a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to post re #1
3.The law re #1 was repealed, making
4.The law/regulation re #2 moot
5. As there is a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to accurately post-
6. Liquor stores who do not remove the post re #1 - are in violation and could lose their license.

Is that the gist?
Thanks ~

 

[toddnjoyce]

@toddnjoyce

Just to confirm my understanding of your post - (sorry so pablum)

1.There was a law regarding carry into liquor stores
2.There was a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to post re #1
3.The law re #1 was repealed, making
4.The law/regulation re #2 moot
5. As there is a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to accurately post-
6. Liquor stores who do not remove the post re #1 - are in violation and could lose their license.

Is that the gist?
Thanks ~

Correct. The reality for #6 is that it’s likely they’ll just be told by TABC they need to take down the sign.

ETA, the blue sign was not just for liquor stores; it was for any retailer selling alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption like convenience stores, grocery stores selling beer/wine, etc.