trig wrote:I may be wrong, but doesn't being charged and/or having your license revoked for carrying where a 30.06 sign is posted, require written, and verbal notice once you've been made?
If so, then why the big deal?
Either a valid 30.06 sign as written notice, or if NO valid 30.06 sign is posted, Written or
Oral notice
(Oral, not "verbal" ... There is a difference)
Sec. 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.
(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.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(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.
(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.
I do agree, shopping elsewhere, because of the store owner's attitude, but not to avoid being arrested for something which isn't a criminal offense in the first place.
How many barefooted people get arrested at restaurants with signs "NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVICE" ? ... It isn't an offense if all the elements of a crime aren't met. And, I doubt any DA would accept charges where it is OBVIOUS no offense is committed, unless he really wants to get laughed at and get his City/County sued for violation of Civil Rights..
I base my layman's opinion upon over 25 years working in a Law Office as a non-attorney after deciding 3 times not to attend the law school which accepted me, and a statement by an Attorney (Charles Cotton)
that
"a "good faith arrest" cannot be made for something that is not illegal and that he, his officers and the city will be prime targets for a §1983 civil rights lawsuit."
Still, I agree that some District Attorneys don;t care what the law is ... based on that nurse arrested for carrying at her hospital which didn't have a valid sign, but she received "notice" but not "effective notice:".
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&start=15#p147976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
