TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote:Right.

I was just saying, the way the laws currently are written, it seems to me that if a Hospital is "required" to post a sign.
AND if they post a sign other than a 30.06 sign, (similar to a 51% sign without the red 51%)they complied with what they are required to do. However, such sign, under 30.06, does NOT give "effective notice" under 30.06 to a CHL. If a hospital wants to also post a 30.06 sign, they may.

CHLs may not carry past a 30.06 sign.

(I"m not including "school" hospitals such as UTMB, etc. etc. etc. in this statement, just private hospitals ... school property is another matter.)

That's my layman's opinion, I ain't a lawyer.

What you said. That's what I was thinking with my not-so-clear post. Got it!

tacticool wrote:30.06 is specific about what counts as written communication.

That's what I thought. Just checking, though. You know how those lawyers are!

RPB wrote:

W42 wrote:legal? at Seton Hospital off 38th in Austin, TX

I gotta tell you. If the Attorney I worked for (also a CHL) told me to draft a sign compliant with 411.204 Government Code which requires hospitals to post signs which are non-compliant with 30.06 ... I'd have drafted that same sign, and I'm sure it would say at the bottom it was approved by Hospital's legal dept too.. Hospital in compliance with 411, without making the supervising Attorney violate 30.06. Innocent patrons better protected from evil persons desiring what's in the pharmacy at any cost. All the good guys in compliance with current codes..as well as a hospital in compliance.

Now if there is also a 30.06 sign, I sure wouldn't carry past any 30.06 sign intentionally. If I was on a posted property without having received effective notice, as in if no sign posted at the only entrance I ever went into and am clueless about other entrances, never having been to one, and told by someone in authority to leave, I'd make tracks right away instead of refusing to leave (30.06 Penal Code).

I have been to hospitals which were posted 30.06, and others which were not, and some which apparently didn't bother with putting up a 411.204 sign.

I won't intentionally carry past a 30.06 sign, but criminals would intentionally.

So what you are saying is that these signs do not apply to the CHL holder? As I read 411.204 (c), it seems to say that "a person licensed under this subchapter" must be informed in both English and Spanish, in contrasting colors at least 1" high. That comes awful close to the requirement for posting 30.06 signs. Am I reading it wrong? I understand the law to mean that "a person licensed under this subchapter" must be informed by 30.06 and 51% signs, and no other sign applies.

Or is that what you were saying? That this is just a "feel good" sign with no legal force?

dicion wrote:He was talking about 2 different signs.

He mentioned that the first one (the pictured one) is non-compliant due to wording.

The second one (no picture) he said was compliant every other way, but had certain contrasting colors for certain words.
I would say that the contrasting colors would not invalidate the sign, as long as they were still clearly readable.

Correct. Sign one (pictured) has non-compliant wording and non-compliant letters making up the wording. Which I found to be odd, as the doors are new.

Sign two (no picture) was compliant as to wording and letter type, but certain words were in another color. As they were all visible, I am assuming (like most of you) that this sign is compliant. If anyone is near Breckenridge hospital in Austin, these are the doors under the skybridge from the parking garage that's on Red River and 15th.

I posted a comment about this on Texas3006.com, but wanted some input from y'all, too. What strikes me as odd is that this hospital just finished a remodel, including the front doors, and they still have the old verbiage posted? And in non-block letter format?

This is what the front door of St. David's in Austin looks like. Well, the two wheelchair access doors, anyway. The main revolving door says nothing on it, so if you are able-bodied, you'd never see the non-compliant sign. Maybe they only want the disabled and injured disarmed. I usually have a ruler, but not on this day, and I don't think the letters meet the size requirements.



Now, Brackenridge has the correct verbiage and size and letter type, but they have a contrasting color thing going on. I forgot to take a picture. Theirs looks kinda like this:

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.

Does a contrasting color like that make it a non-compliant sign? It is kind of hard to see the red on the tinted glass of the door, but once you see the "Pursuant to Section 30.06..." you pretty much know what to expect.