TexasCHLforum.com

Two more excellent amendments added to HB910; lower penalty clarification and no overzealous *investigations*!

RHenriksen wrote:

v7a wrote:[ Image ]

Okay, then my guess is to ensure that the change in penalty from class A misdemeanor to Class C for walking past a 30.06 sign will apply to both 30.06 and 30.07 signs.

The amendment applies to both so written

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

The Class C is the new penalty while exceptions are given for Class A... Seems to me they have to prove you should get a Class A, not the other way around.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

CJD wrote:

Tracker wrote: If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why I don't think their argument of "after entering the property" made sense. Like I pointed out, 30.06 does not state that one must "see" the sign in order to receive notice, nor does the amendment say that "accidentally" entering the property is only a Class C.
If you enter the property, and a 30.06 sign is properly posted, then whether you see it or not, you are given effective notice and failing to depart.

With this in mind, I don't see a scenario in which one commits a Class C 30.06 trespass. If you can show me a scenario, I would love to be proven wrong.

CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

Oh I did miss that part. In which case, someone could verbally tell you "no concealed weapon" or pointing to the 30.06 sign AFTER you entered... thanks for that clarification.

When I gave it more thought, it would have to be proven that you failed to depart after given the notice. Well, I don't know about you, but I never entered a business without the intent to depart within the near future

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote: Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

Sorry, this is what I meant. However, it would still be a major win for us since it would only be a Class C misdemeanor if we inadvertently walk past a sign. Class A would only apply if we received notice and failed to depart. In terms of written notice wouldn't it come down to proving we saw the sign and blatantly ignored it. When the amendment was first offered, it was stated to protect against innocently missing a valid sign and being charged with a Class A.

It may just be me, but nowhere in the code does it say you must SEE the sign for it to be valid:

""Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

I agree. But then, what exactly would be the purpose of this amendment? If a store posts a valid 30.06 sign and you don't see it, then by reason, you received effective notice thus making it an automatic Class A misdemeanor? Under what circumstances would the Class C misdemeanor apply?

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.PDF
Only 30.06 was amended with the last amendment..

Lines 22-29 are relating to 30.07 are they not? Page 31 deals with 30.07.

Thanks for the clarification CJD. After re-reading the amendment, 30.06 AND 30.07 is actually covered with this amendment. Per the Amendment:

On page 31, strike line 26 and substitute the following:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

And per the amendment, Page 31, Line 26 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... df#page=31) specifically deals with the penalty for violation 30.07. So YES, the penalty would be a Class C for concealed carry AND open carry unless you were told to depart and failed to do so!

Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

Sorry, this is what I meant. However, it would still be a major win for us since it would only be a Class C misdemeanor if we inadvertently walk past a sign. Class A would only apply if we received notice and failed to depart. In terms of written notice wouldn't it come down to proving we saw the sign and blatantly ignored it. When the amendment was first offered, it was stated to protect against innocently missing a valid sign and being charged with a Class A.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.PDF
Only 30.06 was amended with the last amendment..

Lines 22-29 are relating to 30.07 are they not? Page 31 deals with 30.07.

Thanks for the clarification CJD. After re-reading the amendment, 30.06 AND 30.07 is actually covered with this amendment. Per the Amendment:

On page 31, strike line 26 and substitute the following:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

And per the amendment, Page 31, Line 26 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... df#page=31) specifically deals with the penalty for violation 30.07. So YES, the penalty would be a Class C for concealed carry AND open carry unless you were told to depart and failed to do so!

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.PDF
Only 30.06 was amended with the last amendment..