Effective notice via electronic sign in?

[pt145ss]

Until 1/1/2016 my employer allowed employees to CC in the building, specifically carving out an exception to the weapons policy, to allow those that are licensed to carry. As a direct result of OC, and mis-information my employer decided to shut down both CC and OC. They removed the exception carved out of our weapons policy. The policy does not have .06 or .07 specific language so it does not have the weight of law but we can be terminated for violating it.

My employer decided that they were not going to post .06 or .07 signs and have opted to give notice to visitors via a computer visitor login at the reception desk. I've seen the computer there but i have never loged into that system to see what the noticed looks like. For the sake of argument, i will assume it is in .06 and .07 language.

My question is: does electronic notice constitute effective notice, given .o6 specifically refers "a card or other document?"

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (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.

(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 license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing 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 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 was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

(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.

[Jago668]

I would tend to assume en electronic document would be okay. You can file taxes online, you can submit your LTC documentation electronically. So I don't think it being on a computer screen will make it invalid.

[LSUTiger]

IMHO, yes, if language is correct, it is effective notice.

However, I have signed my such things/notices/you agree to comply with all company policies blah blah blah with out reading them thoroughly when checking into many offices. It may still be possible to sign in, miss the notice and since no visible sign was posted assume CC/OC was permitted.

It would still be only a class C unless you were then given verbal notice and asked to leave then class A. But concealed is concealed as they say, how would anyone know, unless a legitimate need to defend yourself arose, at which point, I wouldn't care about a possible class C. An by default I wouldn't OC in an office. You are just asking for trouble.

[pt145ss]

The other part is that not everyone signs in at the front desk. We have another entity that sublets half of the first floor. Their company policy allows them to CC in their offices. Because we do business with them, other then a tenant/landlord relationship, their electronic key cards grant them access to all floors. We also have groups of people from other companies that we provide services to, come in for training on various systems. Most of these companies allow CC as part of their weapons policy. These groups do not necessarily sign in individually. So in my feable mind, guns are and will continue to be in the building.

I was hoping to use this information as a talking point (just one of many) to maybe sway opening up CC again.

We understand why OC is shut down... nor do we want OC. We just want our CC back.

In the 6+ years we had CC at work, there was not a single incident that would blemish our track record.

[Shadow41]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

[WildBill]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

Having an electronic sign-in process produces a record that you were given effective notice. Posting a sign does not.
With an electronic record it would be very difficult for you to claim that you didn't know that you couldn't carry.

[ScottDLS]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

Three ways...SIGN, VERBAL NOTICE (technically ORAL), or A CARD OR DOCUMENT, which theoretically the e-sign in could be considered.

[Shadow41]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

Having an electronic sign-in process produces a record that you were given effective notice. Posting a sign does not.
With an electronic record it would be very difficult for you to claim that you didn't know that you couldn't carry.

I do understand that, but the OP said that NOT everyone is required to sign in. So, how has a person that did not sign in been given notice? That's my question.

[WildBill]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

Having an electronic sign-in process produces a record that you were given effective notice. Posting a sign does not.
With an electronic record it would be very difficult for you to claim that you didn't know that you couldn't carry.

I do understand that, but the OP said that NOT everyone is required to sign in. So, how has a person that did not sign in been given notice? That's my question.

I don't know. Unless they may may have signed in previously.
My company had a safety briefing for all visitors before they could enter the plant, but they only had to do it once a year.

[joelamosobadiah]

My understanding is that there is only 2 ways to be given legal effective notice. Obviously the first is the signage at the exterior entry door of building, and the second being verbal notice once you've entered. So what happens if someone that's CCing enters the building and for whatever reason they are not required to sign in, and thus never received effective notice? If they're somehow exposed, are they then notified verbally told they have to leave, or does someone report them to the authorities? Is that person likely to receive a Class C citation even though they were never actually given notification if the authorities show up?

I honestly don't understand why a business or office building, whatever the case may be, would essentially try to "hide" giving an effective legal notice IF this constitutes a legal notice. The law specifies how legal notice is supposed to be given. I could maybe understand just giving verbal notification for OC similar to what Whataburger is supposedly doing, but how can they possibly try to stop CC without clearly visible 30.06 signage in accordance with state law? IMHO if the law specifies how we are supposed to react to a legal notice, why shouldn't the business be required to follow the law on giving us that notice? A non-compliant sign is one thing, but no sign is totally different.

Having an electronic sign-in process produces a record that you were given effective notice. Posting a sign does not.
With an electronic record it would be very difficult for you to claim that you didn't know that you couldn't carry.

I do understand that, but the OP said that NOT everyone is required to sign in. So, how has a person that did not sign in been given notice? That's my question.

In this case, those that did sign in would have received effective notice, however those that did not sign in wouldn't have received effective notice. Therefore it would be illegal for some to carry in the building while not being illegal for others.

[Shadow41]

Three ways...SIGN, VERBAL NOTICE (technically ORAL), or A CARD OR DOCUMENT, which theoretically the e-sign in could be considered.

I do remember the card or document I just lumped it with verbal and not as a separate notice as a post entry notice, my mistake for doing that.

[pt145ss]

I do understand that, but the OP said that NOT everyone is required to sign in. So, how has a person that did not sign in been given notice? That's my question.

In this case, those that did sign in would have received effective notice, however those that did not sign in wouldn't have received effective notice. Therefore it would be illegal for some to carry in the building while not being illegal for others.

That is my point (at least one of them). Not everyone will be given or has been given effective notice and therefore guns will continue to be in the building. If they are not going to give everyone effective notice why not just go back to the way it was and allow CC?!?!?!

And it seems that the concensus is that an e-document is the same as a document.

[WildBill]

I do understand that, but the OP said that NOT everyone is required to sign in. So, how has a person that did not sign in been given notice? That's my question.

In this case, those that did sign in would have received effective notice, however those that did not sign in wouldn't have received effective notice. Therefore it would be illegal for some to carry in the building while not being illegal for others.

That is my point (at least one of them). Not everyone will be given or has been given effective notice and therefore guns will continue to be in the building. If they are not going to give everyone effective notice why not just go back to the way it was and allow CC?!?!?!

And it seems that the concensus is that an e-document is the same as a document.

Since this is a CHL Forum the members obviously are more concerned about 30.06 signs and effective notice than other individuals.
The management and policy-making people have hundreds of issues that they consider more important than firearms at the workplace.
IMO, they don't want to spend the time and effort to seriously study or debate the issue so most take the easy way out and just simply have a policy of no weapons.

[thetexan]

Until 1/1/2016 my employer allowed employees to CC in the building, specifically carving out an exception to the weapons policy, to allow those that are licensed to carry. As a direct result of OC, and mis-information my employer decided to shut down both CC and OC. They removed the exception carved out of our weapons policy. The policy does not have .06 or .07 specific language so it does not have the weight of law but we can be terminated for violating it.

My employer decided that they were not going to post .06 or .07 signs and have opted to give notice to visitors via a computer visitor login at the reception desk. I've seen the computer there but i have never loged into that system to see what the noticed looks like. For the sake of argument, i will assume it is in .06 and .07 language.

My question is: does electronic notice constitute effective notice, given .o6 specifically refers "a card or other document?"

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (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.

(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 license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing 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 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 was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

(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.

Most probably yes it would be considered notice if language was correct. Most electronic files and displays are considered documents now. The law will likely be changed to reflect this terminology in the future.

tex