TexasCHLforum.com

wford wrote:I am curious as to what your involvement is with Texas LEO training which would allow you to describe the knowledge of "most officers" and the level of training they receive on the penal code.

Your right, maybe it is a rash thing to say without knowing what type of training they get. I would say that with my one personal encounter I had with a senior officer (30 yr. veteran) and what I see on this board and others about LEO's telling people things that are not enforcable and such that "most officers" knowledge is lacking in this area. I don't know what extent of training they recieve, but I would like to make a personal comparison if I may. I am an operator at a chemical plant. There were a million different rules that I had to learn when I hired in, I'm still working on that 5 years later. The management team comes out with so many new rules and procedures or changes to existing ones that it is near impossible to remeber them all. I take that back, it is impossible for one person to correctly remeber them all always, all the time. So when it comes to LEO's and what they know concerning CHL laws, I sympothize and understand because I can imagine that their job, in that respect, is much the same as mine. The laws are constantly changing and there is a lot of other stuff they have to keep up with. So it's not a cut to them, just trying to be realistic about the situation.

Just a side note, this is one of the things me and the LEO at the library talked about. He admitted to knowing that, at the time, all he knew about CHL was that I had to display the card and what the card looked like. Other than that he said he didn't know anything else about CHL and its "technical" laws.

wford wrote:I'm going to guess that based on your concerns expressed in this thread that your not going to carry in a Library with a 30.06.
I do(did, not postive the sign is still there) and would encourage others too also.

Well, just being honest, I have gone there one other time and did not carry because I was still on the fence about the whole situation. But, I think next time I would like to, but also worry about the same LEO spotting me and maybe wanting to do a search. I know, highly unlikey, but just a worry.

Russell wrote:Also, we need to be careful in what wording we use here. An improperly posted 30.06 sign is NOT ILLEGAL. It may be unenforceable, but there is no law written anywhere that states a local, county, or state government may not post 30.06 signs on government property.

That is one thing I have learned from this thread. Not illegal, just unenforceable.

Thanks for the responses.

dicion wrote: I'm pretty sure that most officers would probably consider a 30.06 on a library valid. Their training probably was along the lines of "30.06 = no carry" without all the extra stipulations.

My point excatly. You just said it better.

Abraham wrote:Many here feel secure with the statement that "concealed is concealed" presumably without regard for the fact that concealed isn't ALWAYS concealed as the unexpected can and does occur...

That's also a good point. You can't always plan for the unexpected. And some LEO with a "thing" wouldn't understand that.

I have a busy weekend ahead of me, but I am going to try and work on a response letter to send to the city sometime next week.

wford wrote:Do you worry about the ghost buster signs also ?

No I don't because these signs do not apply to the CHL holder. The 30.06 sign does when it is posted correctly and on the right building.

Dealing with the police is probably indeed a slippery slope with some LEO's. Some know their stuff and these are the guys that you don't need to worry about. It's the ones who only know half the law that will get you in trouble. In this case the half of the law some know is that where there is a 30.06 sign it is illegal for the CHL holder to carry. The part they don't know is the part we're discussing here in this thread.

Mike1951 wrote:As has been pointed out numerous times here, there is nothing illegal about posting these signs.

They are, however, unenforceable.

I agree that these signs are unenforceable, but what I would be worried about is one of the officers on duty at the library being alert, for a change, and notice me carrying and not knowing the signs are unenforceable. To stay out of trouble you would have to argue that the sign is unenforceable, not that you didn't see it because there is no way your going to miss that sign. Trying to make that argument on the spot would probably still get you at least a court date which I wouldn't want to go through.

And I know, we always say, concealed is concealed, but if you were looking for a concealed gun on somone and knew what you were looking for, you can probably spot it.

Abraham, just out of curiosity if you don't mind me asking, how much did your "ride" cost you? And did it leave any dings on your record?

wford, I guess one of the reasons is because when I first got my license I thought the sign was actually valid and would not carry into the building. So, I would like to have it fixed that way there is no doubt in others minds about wheter or not they can carry. I am not enraged about the whole situation in general, it does irritate me quite a bit that they can't follow their own rules, but I am not fuming over it, does that make sense? It's kinda like a pebble in your shoe. It's not going to kill you, but it sure is annoying.

So where did you end up with the Arlington Public Library? From your snippet it looks like they pretty much told you that the City Charter overrides the State laws, did I read that right?

lonewolf, I wish I could take credit for that letter, but I am going to give credit where credit is due. Russell gave me that on page one of this thread and I just inserted the names and place. So we might say Russell has indicated his ability to write a well-formed and straightforward document. Thanks Russell and hats off to him. Maybe he'll give a well-formed and straightforward response to send.

Here was the excat copy and paste letter I sent to the City of Baytown's Legal Department:

Dear Officer for Public Records:
This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas Government Code, which guarantees the public's access to information in the custody of governmental agencies. It has come to my attention that the Sterling Municipal Library at Mary Elizabeth Wilbanks Avenue, Baytown, Texas 77520 has 30.06 signs posted on the outside doors. I respectfully request access to the following information:

1) Documents indicating that the signs are enforceable.
2) Documents indicating that the signs are not enforceable.
3) Any deliberations by the officials responsible for the signs as to the motive and goals for posting the signs.

Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the information primarily benefits the general public. I therefore request a waiver of all fees and charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act.

I shall look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Wayne

Okay, I got a response today from the City of Baytown's Legal Department. This is the e-mail I recieved:

Dear Wayne:


The City Clerk’s Office is in receipt of your public information request, internal number 1371. You requested: “It has come to my attention that the Sterling Municipal Library at Mary Elizabeth Wilbanks Avenue, Baytown, Texas 77520 has 30.06 signs posted on the outside doors. I respectfully request access to the following information:

1) Documents indicating that the signs are enforceable.
2) Documents indicating that the signs are not enforceable.
3) Any deliberations by the officials responsible for the signs as to the motive and goals for posting the signs.”



The City has researched its records and found that there are no records responsive to your request at this time.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance and have a wonderful day.


Sincerely,

Leticia Garza

Interim City Clerk

So basically if I read that right, there is no doucumentation that they can show to prove the signs are enforceable. Does everyone else read it the same way? So now I need to send some type of request to remove the sign. Is there a proper form for that?

I'm not 100% sure of all the functions that go on in the library, but like I said, I have sent an e-mail to the legal department and am still awaiting their answer. They may inform me that they have goverment meetings on a regular basis at the library, doubt it, but they may. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I sent the Open Records Request Form out today around 0700. We'll see how long it takes to get an answer. Anyone want to start placing bets?

Thanks for the replies. Mike1951, they might not change it now, but I figure it's worth a try again. And if there is some legislation like wford described, then they would be in the right to leave the sign posted, although unapplicable. Russell, I think I will use the form you gave. It would be requesting the legislation that wford is reffering to as evidence that it's okay to leave the signs posted and then we could share it with everyone here. Thanks to all!

Allright. I know that this may seem stupid to some, it really is to my wife, but it just annoys me to no end that the sign they have posted is not legal. Anyhow, went to the library again tonight and talked to the officer on duty for a while. First off, he flat out told me he had no idea what the laws were, only what a card looked like and that the gun had to be concealed. Secondly, he felt that in a public building such as a library or something similar, you shouldn't need to carry a weapon. I didn't say it, but there is a reason we call it "going postal." So, all that to say this, he told me I should contact the Baytown legal department and see what they had to say, so here is my letter to them. I havn't sent it yet, so let me know if I need to add/delete something.

I have a question regarding concealed handgun license (CHL) laws. Particularly section 30.06 subsection 3 (e). It states: "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder cames 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." The question I have is about the legality of the 30.06 sign posted at the Sterling Municipal Library. This property is obviously owned or leased by the goverment and according to this section of law should not have a 30.06 sign posted. It also should not fall under the qualification of a school , which is listed in sections 46.03 or 46.035 as being off limits and does not require a 30.06 sign. There may be field trips conducted at the library, but there are also field trips conducted to the San Jacinto Mall and the mall would clearly not be off limits to concealed carry due to a field trip being there at the time. If there is something I am missing in the law about this, please state the section to I can read up on it and understand more about the restrictions I need to follow. Thank you for your time.

Anyhow, in writting this, I had another question of my own. Does section 46.03 apply to concealed carry? And if not, section 46.035 doesn't list a school as being off limits, only a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event. I know this was long, but if you read it all, thanks, and more thanks if you post a reply.

I just want to be absolutley sure I understand this correctly before I test this. When it comes to carrying in a public library, such as the Sterling Municipal Library in Baytown, even if they have a 30.06 sign posted (and they do have one posted), can you still carry? I looked the law up and here is what I found and understand it says we can carry: "(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." This was under section 30.06. Now, I know we all say concealed is concealed and that means you shouldn't be able to tell you have a gun on. I believe to the average person this is true. But an LEO might be able to spot a small bulge and has the right to question you about it and if it is illegal to be carrying, you could get in trouble. I mention the LEO because as soon as you walk into the library he/she is sitting right there at the entrance, although usually on the computer and not paying attention to anything or anyone, but nevertheless still there. Also, what if a local school is having a field trip at the library, does that then change the circumstances? And if so, then if a school has a field trip ANYWHERE, does that then make carrying at that place off limts at that time? Thanks in advance.