Can i get arrested for this? (Howe: ordinance, place, work)

[majormadmax]

I am glad that SAPD and/or the Airport Police can ignore Texas state law when arresting someone...I have posted numerous times while that sign at SAT is illegal and if your belief is that it is still a legal arrest then so be it. I have yet to see any reference to why you believe that, I've posted links to all the state penal code sections to support my position; you basically say that the police are correct no matter what the law says.

I don't expect law enforcement officers to know every law on the books, but I do expect them to be able to understand one when presented to them. My experience to date has been that is usually the case, but I guess there will always be exceptions...

I'm done with this thread, I think I've said everything I can say; so there's nothing more for me to add...

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

I am glad that SAPD and/or the Airport Police can ignore Texas state law when arresting someone...I have posted numerous times while that sign at SAT is illegal and if your belief is that it is still a legal arrest then so be it. I have yet to see any reference to why you believe that, I've posted links to all the state penal code sections to support my position; you basically say that the police are correct no matter what the law says.

I don't expect law enforcement officers to know every law on the books, but I do expect them to be able to understand one when presented to them. My experience to date has been that is usually the case, but I guess there will always be exceptions...

Because...again, the sign is not illegal because you say it is illegal (and once again, I agree with you so this is not a personal issue, it is informative because people need to know what can happen)

It was passed into law by the city and has not been struck down...as a matter of fact (and I have already said this, in spite of your assertion I have not) It will(could) take an arrest to give someone standing to challenge the sign.

The point of arrest is not a court room. It isnt about the Officers being correct, again, as I have said, Officers dont have to be correct, they have to have an articulable reason, which is not the same thing as being right.

To be blunt major, you have stated, and continue to state things that are wrong about this issue (which I have never seen you do before) You are emotionally invested in this issue and have some false understandings of how it works.

You said it is unenforcable. I think I have show how that is factually untrue.

You have said it is illegal. It isnt illegal until a court creates a case history, which comes after enforcement or it is repelled, which can happen a number of ways.

You have confused "correct" with a legal action. They are not the same thing, and I have been over that many times. The police do not have to be right. They are wrong all the time, that doesnt make their actions illegal.

You say I have not even shown why that is, yet I have, many times, in many ways gone step by step through the process.

I have not posted any information in an attempt to make any one look bad, it is only informative. It is information probably should know because it is obvious that many people have some flawed understanding about this. That flawed understanding could cost someone a great deal.

For an opinion based on experience, what you have here is a conflict. Which is why there are "two sides" to this. There may very well be a lot of "should" and "obvious" here...but that is simply not how the legal system often works. If you get arrested for this, you are going to get caught in the middle of a fight while things that may seem so obvious to some have to work their way through a legal system that is more complicated than that.

That is playing with fire. A lot of people keep saying "that isnt (the signs) legal" I agree but no matter how we feel about it, it isnt that simple and it could cost you. It honestly sounds like some of you would rather argue your feelings on the issue that realize your feelings wont stop reality. I dont get that.

Of course, as always, if you see it another way, good luck with that.

[TexasRedneck]

Well, let's go with that - that the city has, in fact, passed a law that says the airport itself (outside of secured areas) is off-limits to CHL holders.....

Could you please show me where that law was passed in council to in fact give it force of law? Or was it posted by someone WITHOUT the concurrence of the city?

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Well, let's go with that - that the city has, in fact, passed a law that says the airport itself (outside of secured areas) is off-limits to CHL holders.....

Could you please show me where that law was passed in council to in fact give it force of law? Or was it posted by someone WITHOUT the concurrence of the city?

That is an excellent question. I dont have a clue as to who put it up and under what authority. All of my statements assume it was done by a regulatory body. Which could start at someone in charge of security and go all the way to the county commissioner.

Unless it was put up by the janitorial staff or a rogue person, I cant really see it having been put there by anyone without some regulatory function....as always, right or wrong.

BTW, to touch on that, "Laws" dont have to be passed to have "force of law." That is not true at all. Agencies with administrative and regulatory functions can and do create functional laws all the time. No legislative body has to pass all the laws. Some laws come to be through executive order. Some laws through case law from the Judiciary and some laws from administrative and regulatory bodies. (For example, the EPA creates laws all the time for environmental reasons)

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

Unless it was put up by the janitorial staff or a rogue person, I cant really see it having been put there by anyone without some regulatory function....as always, right or wrong.

Okay....so, let's go with that. Are you going to arrest someone based on that signage? Because if in doing so you are contravening State laws, on what "authority" are you going to affect the arrest? Because when you present yourself to me as an LEO and I offer State Law that saws the city may NOT deny me the right to carry - you now have to make a choice - enforce a rule/law that is in direct conflict with the ACTUAL law, or take a chance of getting sued. By "assuming" someone with "authority" has caused that sign to be placed there, you are now taking on some culpability IMO.

This is NOT taking a "shot" at you....this goes along with discussions we often hold within our own family, where there are a number of current and former LEO's.

[TexasRedneck]

Oh....and the airport is city property, not county - so the county has no jurisdictional authority to cause the posting of a sign.

[gungemini]

Originally Posted by Neshomamench

I understand that the law sets out specific requirments for a "30.06" sign....but to the crowd who says "that isnt a legal sign so it doesnt mean anything..."



If you think telling a judge "that is not a legal sign"....and then having a conversation about "so...you did see the sign..." is going to get you out of the charge, you run a very high risk of being wrong. You have just confessed to a level of culpability.

My post is not about what is right or wrong. It is simply informative for the "that sign doesnt count" crowd and how you may suffer for your mistaken beliefs.

TRUE. ive been there. DONT TRUST what youve heard from "friends and people" LOOK UP THE LAW and consider the source.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Okay....so, let's go with that. Are you going to arrest someone based on that signage? Because if in doing so you are contravening State laws, on what "authority" are you going to affect the arrest? Because when you present yourself to me as an LEO and I offer State Law that saws the city may NOT deny me the right to carry - you now have to make a choice - enforce a rule/law that is in direct conflict with the ACTUAL law, or take a chance of getting sued. By "assuming" someone with "authority" has caused that sign to be placed there, you are now taking on some culpability IMO.

This is NOT taking a "shot" at you....this goes along with discussions we often hold within our own family, where there are a number of current and former LEO's.

I am not going to arrest anyone for it. As I have said , I agree with most people here. That doesnt change what an Officer can do, and that is my mission, to inform people of what can happen to them.

You showing me a law doesnt mean anything to me if I have decided on an enforcement action. (I already have an articulable reason for PC for the arrest) all you have is your side....tell it to the judge. An arrest is not a courtroom. In reality, no matter how you see it, I risk nothing if I have PC. One more time, I dont have to be right. I can be dead wrong. If I have an articulable reason. Let the courts figure out all the details.

You people have to get past the "well here is how I see it so it is so..." You are wrong. You have your side. The officer has his. The courts will decide who is right. My gut tells me that chances are it would never even make it to court and the charges would be dropped....but that doesnt make it a pay day for you because it was still a legal arrest.

Lets try this another way. The city changes the timing of yellow lights. They shorten the light to an illegal amount of time. No one voted on it. They just did it.

I as an officer see you running a red light. (I can arrest you for that) So I do. You know the city shortened the yellow, you have a copy of the law of how long it has to be. Hell, you have the video of it being shorter than that.

Fine, I still arrest you for running a red light. Tell it to the Judge.

You may win, but it will still cost you and I, as the Officer still made a valid arrest.

It is the same thing with the 30.06 sign. I see you with a gun, past that sign. On go the cuffs. Tell it to the Judge.

[TexasRedneck]

I hear what you're saying....I guess in this instance, if you as the arresting officer KNOW the law says that the city can't post such signage, what is your exposure? Bear in mind that "I was following orders" has been proven in court NOT to hold up if the actor did so knowing his action contravenes the law.
THIS is what ticks me off - that the city does such a thing KNOWING it's illegal - and consequently pits an LEO against a civilian where it shouldn't have to happen.

[Neshomamench]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

I hear what you're saying....I guess in this instance, if you as the arresting officer KNOW the law says that the city can't post such signage, what is your exposure? Bear in mind that "I was following orders" has been proven in court NOT to hold up if the actor did so knowing his action contravenes the law.
THIS is what ticks me off - that the city does such a thing KNOWING it's illegal - and consequently pits an LEO against a civilian where it shouldn't have to happen.

Again, YOUR SIDE is that it is illegal. You must get past the "my possition is right"...no, it is not right until it is clarified.

As the Officer, to me, it may not be clear...and thus, "tell it to the Judge"

Officer: "Your Honor, he was past a 30.06 sign with a firearm" That is PC...end of story.

Your side are all the reasons why that would be OK. One of your reasons can very well be that the sign itself would not apply.