prosecution over impromper 30.06 postings

[78641]

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;


(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.


This gets confusing. This seems to be saying that a nursing home or hospital needs to post a 30.06 to prohibit CHL carry. If that is the case, why are they specifically mentioned? If they are the same under the 30.06 law as any other business, why single them out this way?

[srothstein]

You have to understand the history and the politics of the law to see why these locations are done that way. When the CHL law was first posted, there was no requirement for the notice in the law. The locations were just prohibited places for CHLs. As time went by, more legislators came around to realize that there was nothing really special about these places. The law was modified to allow these places. But they also have some very powerful lobbyists and they wanted to remain. This is especially true about hospitals.

For a time, there was a legal requirement in the Occupations Code (IIRC) that all medical facilities post a notice banning weapons. It even required the exact same wording as the 51% sign but no red 51 (which is why some hospitals have the red 51 sign still - wrong then and still is but this is how it came about). The medical lobby is still pretty strong, so the easiest way around them politically is to leave the wording in, but add a requirement for the notice. After all, it is just fair to require the notice, right?

So this way, we end up with a law that only applies if the other law applies. Where it really has a potential problem for CHL's is if they do miss the sign and get caught. A really anti-gun DA could charge them with TWO class A's, 30.06 and 46.035 violations. I think you would win on appeal based on the theory that one act can only be banned by one law - similar laws must have some fact that differs for the counts to be separate, but I am not enough of a legal expert to know for sure. I do know that if the DA charges you with two counts, it is much easier to get a plea bargain for one.

Of course, there is also the other fact that many hospitals are government owned. The 30.06 law does not apply to them, so this is the only way to keep them gun free if the hospital wants to be. Again, the politics of the medical lobby can be hard to beat. Event he legislators need doctors sometimes, so they don't want to get them too mad.

[KBCraig]

This gets confusing. This seems to be saying that a nursing home or hospital needs to post a 30.06 to prohibit CHL carry. If that is the case, why are they specifically mentioned? If they are the same under the 30.06 law as any other business, why single them out this way?

They were originally in the list of places that are off limits by statute, in 1995. Just like amusement parks.

After 30.06 was passed in 1997, they were changed to "but only if 30.06 notice is given".

It was an easier way of changing the code, I guess.

[Kalrog]

I could be wrong but I thought a nursing home was one of the places you [/i]cannot legally carry without the express permission of the owner/administrator. If I remember correctly, they don't need to post anything.

You are wrong NOW. That used to be the situation IIRC, but now they need to post like everyone else. Just like hospitals.

[sar]

Here's a question. If the hospital is posted with a 30.06 sign, but a CHL gets written authorization to carry from the administration, is that legit?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here's a question. If the hospital is posted with a 30.06 sign, but a CHL gets written authorization to carry from the administration, is that legit?

Yes, the written consent constitutes "effective consent" so it's legal to cross the 30.06 sign. TPC §30.06 requires both 1) a lack of "effective consent" to enter the property';and 2) notice that entry is forbidden, as required by that section.

Chas.

Here is the language:

§ 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.