TexasCHLforum.com

@Rick -

I think you have brought up a number of good points in your analysis and I like your hypothetical "test case". Here are my thoughts. Oh, and as you may have seen from my previous posts, my opinions are many and varied...and worth what you paid for them (if not less).

When I choose to carry, I make my best effort to follow the law as I understand it, and as it has been applied in the few cases where it has come up. I am less concerned about the intent/desires/opinions of property owners or public officials, unless they are legally relevant. In your test case scenarios there are two laws at play that could conceivably result in a criminal prosecution. However, I don't believe prosecution for either would be successful.

The first statute is Texas PC 30.05 "Criminal Trespass" and the second is PC 30.06 "Trespass by a CHL Licensee". You have dispensed with 46.035 based on your hypothetical "accidental exposure", so I won't go into that.

Let's start with 30.05...

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS, (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...

So let's say you walk up to a building you see a sign that says NO TRESPASSING on the door. That's notice that "entry is forbidden". So if you went in you'd be violating 30.05. Let's say you walk into a store and you see a list of "rules"... NO SKATEBOARDS, NO BALL CAPS, NO GUNS. I guess you could argue that if you had any of those items, then you received notice to depart. I'm not convinced that the trespass law is designed to allow for criminal enforcement of a list of rules, but for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

Also, let's say you were carrying a concealed handgun and you have a CHL, but no ball cap, and no skateboard. Here's the problem with prosecuting you under 30.05... you have a statutory defense.

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS
...
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.
...

While a Defense is not the same thing as the law being inapplicable, it precludes successful prosecution unless the prosecution can refute "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defense to prosecution existed. As a sidebar, carrying WITH a CHL, was only a Defense to Prosecution under 46.02 until 1997.

So my argument is that a Licensee can not be successfully prosecuted under 30.05 if the reason for his exclusion from the property was that he was carrying a concealed handgun. This is regardless of what type of "notice" he received, even a valid 30.06 notice still doesn't get you prosecuted for 30.05.

All right, now that a 30.05 prosecution is negated, lets see what can get you under 30.06.

PC §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.

So you walk into a store past a gunbusters sign, or a NO CONCEALED GUNS OR SKATEBOARDS, or a 30.06 sign in 6 point, Times New Roman font, on the ceiling. My argument is that you haven't received notice. The reason is that "notice" is specifically defined in the statute, and none of the above scenarios meets the definition. Nor do any of the signs described in Rick's post. The reason I say this is the definition of notice.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN,
...
...
(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.
...
(3) "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 just don't see how it can be argued that you have received notice by written communication based on seeing a sign that clearly doesn't meet the statutory definitions. And you surely don't receive notice if you don't see the sign.

Now for oral notice, there is no specific wording required. So if the owner says "No guns in here, you have to leave...." you could be violating 30.06. Or if he just said, "YOU, get out...." then 30.05 (whether you had a gun or not).

So that's my thought on the law. No doubt you could get arrested for some of the scenarios, but I don't think prosecution would be successful. Not aware of any cases to the contrary, but if they come up I'd like to hear about them.

-Scott

Well to circle it back to the original topic. I am deterred from carrying past a 30.06 sign that is as described in the statute and posted on property that is not owned or leased by a governmental entity. I am deterred from carrying anywhere where it is otherwise illegal, with or without a sign (i.e. courthouse, premises of a school, etc.).

I am not deterred from lawful carrying by possibility of arrest by an ignorant or misinformed LEO. I am not deterred by the demonstrably incorrect opinion of a DPS attorney that has no bearing on prosecutions in county court. I am not deterred by factually incorrect claims that ISD's and Central Appraisal Districts are not governmental entities. I am not deterred from carrying by the potential cost of having to prove myself right in court any more than I am deterred from any other legal activity.

I have been arrested before, though not for CCW, and not in Texas. While the charges were ultimately dismissed it was a wholly unpleasant experience that I do not desire to repeat. However, I will not allow fear of that experience to dissuade me from exercising my legal right to carry a concealed handgun with a license. I don't care if I'm not going to beat the ride. I continue to carry concealed in any number of locations where misinformed government officials have (wrongly) suggested that I cannot.

I carry a .380 in my front pocket in an Uncle Mike's nylon holster. It's a little harder to get to than IWB carry, but pretty well concealed and arguably unlikely to be "made". I also carry a 9mm SIG P226 in my car...sometimes right past the 30.05 postings at Love Field parking garage. Haven't been caught yet.

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Look I'm not trying to antagonize you. I think this is a worthy public discussion for this board. At least you have made the effort to contact officials, hear what they have to say, present our side of the story, and try to correct them.

Now I'm going to break down my point of view.

The charge will be trespass by a CHL.

The 30.06 charge is completely unsupported by the law. They might as well say the charge is murder. The 30.06 section is not applicable. See 30.06 law cite below.

I guess the perfect storm of cop with an attitude, liberal DA, and anti-gun judge could support the murder charge for carrying in the school parking lot. But then we're just being nihilists and the law doesn't mean anything, everything is random, and chaos rules. That's not a facts based argument.

Your use of the murder argument seems antagonistic to me, but I will respond as if you seriously want to discuss, instead of being critical without knowing the whole story as in your posts until now. It would not require anything like a perfect storm to support the 30.06 charge, at least to uncomfortable levels for the unfortunate victim of the false arrest and imprisonment. Although you have quoted the law and your stand that it will be followed perfectly by law enforcement is admirable, it is also somewhat naive to expect them to follow your understanding, especially in light of the "cuffed and stuffed" thread where there was no CHL violation, but the victim was arrested anyway.

And the charges were almost immediately dropped because they were unsupported by the law. That was the point of my "murder" hyperbole.

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I'm only in a position to make a "judgment" on what you have shared so far of your conversations. But unless you've got some amazing legal revelation that PISD lawyers or DPS shared, I haven't yet heard logic to convince me otherwise.

So why pass judgment then? Why not ask for further information politely instead if just saying that it can't happen because you said so? I do have some more information, but not much. When the signs went up at PISD I noticed immediately because my wife is employed there. I went over to a nearby school and found several things, that the letters were not proper size, the wording was improper, and the signs were only visible in one direction if you happened to be entering the public parking lot. I called PISD administration and was informed that they are NOT a government entity, therefore the posting is valid, and that they have checked with DPS and have been told that the language is correct and the size is immaterial. I then called DPS and was informed by the lady lawyer that many of us have gotten the same answer from, that they consider a 30.06 even with improper language and wrong size letters, to be an effort at posting and they will enforce the idea, rather than the fact. According to them, PISD is free to have you arrested and they will support the prosecution.

PISD is a government entity. They have taxing authority, they are constituted under the laws of the State, and the Trustees are elected. The DPS doesn't support prosecutions unless they were the arresting agency.

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I don't live in PISD territory, but stop asking me if I want to be the test case. I live in the Lewisville ISD in Texas. I am the test case.

And yet you claim not to be being antagonistic while suggesting that I do so father down. Sorry, the invitation still holds, you are welcome to come over to PISD and be a test case any time you want to, LISD is not posted, so you are right not to worry, but PISD is and I can just envision how much attention the cops will pay to your protestations that the law doesn't apply. But you are definitively NOT the test case you claim to be, you have never been arrested, that you have told us, or apparently even questioned about being on LISD property with your concealed handgun, the fact that there is no case, means there is no test.

ScottDLS wrote:I carry at the non-secure area of the DFW airport and in the parking lot.

And this is germain how?

ScottDLS wrote:I carry in movie theaters where I can't see any signs because they are too small to read.

So?

ScottDLS wrote:I open carry in my house and on the firing line at the DFW Gun Range in Dallas.

Even less meaningful.

ScottDLS wrote:Sometimes I drive 43mph in a 45mph zone. I don't worry about being arrested for any of this, because it's not against the law. But if I am arrested, I'll spend a few bucks to prove myself right.

So you are prepared to be a test case? I thought you didn't want to be.

All examples of activities that are no more illegal than driving onto 30.06 posted government entity property. So why do you worry about PISD and not these examples?

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:You seem to be looking for someone in authority or a law to tell you what IS OK. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. That which is not prohibited is allowed. You, the DPS, the PISD lawyers, haven't explained how any of these actions are prohibited. I'm standing by.

Covered above. Not looking for someone to tell me it's OK, just pointing out, as a comment, that PISD is posted with invalid 30.06 signage and they intend to prosecute, and DPS supports them.

I'm sure the other improperly posted government entities intend to prosecute, and in the unlikely event you're discovered, will undoubtedly fail (in their prosecution). DPS is irrelevant unless you somehow got arrested by a trooper.

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Do you carry anywhere with your CHL? If so aren't you worried that an anti-gun DA or cop will have you "cuffed and stuffed" for 46.02 UCW. I mean it's not applicable per 46.15 since you have your CHL, but aren't you worried about a cop who isn't familiar with CHL.

Quite frankly, after the "cuffed and stuffed" thread, I will admit to some trepidation, but your argumentativeness doesn't encourage me to answer beyond that.

My legal carry causes me very little concern, even after reading Handog's unfortunate experience, because my method of carry makes it highly unlikely to be exposed. That's why I don't spend a lot of time worried about carrying on 30.06 posted government property. I'm very unlikely to be caught and even if I am, it's not illegal. When PISD officials are claiming they are not a government entity, their other (incorrect) interpretations of the law become very suspect.

jimlongley wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

HankB wrote:So far, I haven't SEEN a "close to" PC30.06 sign - they've either been fully compliant (as far as I could tell) or obviously NON-compliant, like typewritten on a half-sheet of notebook paper.

If I saw a sign that was correct except for something like a missing comma or letters that are 0.005" too short, I'd avoid entering.

Plano Independent School District has every school parking lot posted with "close" signs. Contact with PISD indicates that they do not intend to replace them with compliant signs and anyone caught beyond the signs will be prosecuted, changes in the law making government property "unpostable" and improper signage notwithstanding. According to those that I have spoken to, the school district's attorneys feel that they are properly posted. The on campus LEOs also say they WILL arrest under the authority of the signs.

So what do these legal eagles from PISD say will be the charge? And the on campus LEO's...what will be their explanation to the Collin County prosecutor and judge for arresting you?

My $0.02, they're bluffing. They want to scare people into not carrying when they know darn well they can't do anything about it...because it's not illegal.

The charge will be trespass by a CHL.

Since you were not a party to the conversations, I doubt you are really in a position to make such a judgment. It was in the same time frame that I called DPS about the out of compliance signs and was informed that they considered close to compliance to be good enough, and they would be the ones to determine close enough. But you are welcome to come call their bluff any time you want to be the test case.

Look I'm not trying to antagonize you. I think this is a worthy public discussion for this board. At least you have made the effort to contact officials, hear what they have to say, present our side of the story, and try to correct them.

Now I'm going to break down my point of view.

The charge will be trespass by a CHL.

The 30.06 charge is completely unsupported by the law. They might as well say the charge is murder. The 30.06 section is not applicable. See 30.06 law cite below.

I guess the perfect storm of cop with an attitude, liberal DA, and anti-gun judge could support the murder charge for carrying in the school parking lot. But then we're just being nihilists and the law doesn't mean anything, everything is random, and chaos rules. That's not a facts based argument.


I'm only in a position to make a "judgment" on what you have shared so far of your conversations. But unless you've got some amazing legal revelation that PISD lawyers or DPS shared, I haven't yet heard logic to convince me otherwise.

I don't live in PISD territory, but stop asking me if I want to be the test case. I live in the Lewisville ISD in Texas. I am the test case. I go to LISD pick up line regularly to pick up my daughter from elementary school and I carry a 9mm handgun in my car in the parking lot. I have been for three years. It doesn't worry me in the slightest. They don't have signs on the parking lot, but that's irrelevant since 30.06 doesn't apply either way.

I carry at the non-secure area of the DFW airport and in the parking lot.

I carry in movie theaters where I can't see any signs because they are too small to read.

I open carry in my house and on the firing line at the DFW Gun Range in Dallas.

Sometimes I drive 43mph in a 45mph zone. I don't worry about being arrested for any of this, because it's not against the law. But if I am arrested, I'll spend a few bucks to prove myself right.

You seem to be looking for someone in authority or a law to tell you what IS OK. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law. That which is not prohibited is allowed. You, the DPS, the PISD lawyers, haven't explained how any of these actions are prohibited. I'm standing by.

Do you carry anywhere with your CHL? If so aren't you worried that an anti-gun DA or cop will have you "cuffed and stuffed" for 46.02 UCW. I mean it's not applicable per 46.15 since you have your CHL, but aren't you worried about a cop who isn't familiar with CHL. Are you willing to be the test case for CHL and "take the ride".

-Scott

PC §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;
...

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

jimlongley wrote:

HankB wrote:So far, I haven't SEEN a "close to" PC30.06 sign - they've either been fully compliant (as far as I could tell) or obviously NON-compliant, like typewritten on a half-sheet of notebook paper.

If I saw a sign that was correct except for something like a missing comma or letters that are 0.005" too short, I'd avoid entering.

Plano Independent School District has every school parking lot posted with "close" signs. Contact with PISD indicates that they do not intend to replace them with compliant signs and anyone caught beyond the signs will be prosecuted, changes in the law making government property "unpostable" and improper signage notwithstanding. According to those that I have spoken to, the school district's attorneys feel that they are properly posted. The on campus LEOs also say they WILL arrest under the authority of the signs.

So what do these legal eagles from PISD say will be the charge? And the on campus LEO's...what will be their explanation to the Collin County prosecutor and judge for arresting you?

My $0.02, they're bluffing. They want to scare people into not carrying when they know darn well they can't do anything about it...because it's not illegal.

I will not carry past a sign when doing so would be illegal .

So in general that means:
- 30.06 signs that are exactly as described in the statute
- 51% signs that are posted in a location where TABC has determined that 51% of the gross sales are from sale of alcohol for on premises consumption.

Also, won't carry in places where it is illegal under Texas or Federal law, regardless of whether they have a sign.