GrillKing wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:
As to the reference to 4413(29ee), it does not make a difference. When a bill is passed, it becomes part of the Revised Statutes ("Black Statutes"), unless it is directly amending a Code. When the CHL statute was codified into the Government Code, it was done so "without substantive changes" to the law as passed, and the Black Statute provisions are repealed. Apparently, when the CHL statute was codified, the bill doing so failed to change the old reference to 4413(29ee) in the TPC §46.16(b)(6). (If someone were researching 4413(29ee) they would find a reference to "now codified as Tex. Gov't. Code §411.________). I know that's a long-winded law school answer - sorry.
OK, I'm confused (easy to do!). Does that mean a reference to 4413(29ee) carries the weight of law?
If so, it seems that PC §46.02 would not be applicable (assuming you carry concealed) to CHL per PC §46.15(b)(6) which references 4413(29ee) and not Subchapter H, Chapter 411. This would also imply to me that a 30.06 sign that referenced 4413(29ee) would carry the same weight as one referencing Subchapter H, Chapeter 411 for the same reason. But it has been hashed out before that is not the case, that a 30.06 sign is THE ONLY compliant sign.
If not, then PC §46.02 would be applicable for CHL and thus no CHL is allowed.
There is a disconnect in my mind, I'm missing something....
Gary:
I knew some eagle-eyed, overly-observant person was going to call me on this!
Oh well, I guess I can’t expect to escape 600+ folks grading my papers.
I could argue in good conscience that in order for a TPC §30.06 sign to be enforceable, it must be worded exactly as set forth in the Penal Code. At one time the statutorily required language referenced the old Black Statutes; i.e. 4413(29ee), but it was amended and new language was required. I would argue that this is analogous to amending TPC §30.06 to require 2" block letters on a sign rather than 1" letters. A property owner that had posted a §30.06 compliant sign with 1" letters would have to change the sign to comply with the new requirements.
However, I can almost guarantee that a DA or ADA would argue the point and I can just hear the questions that would come from the bench during oral arguments in the appellate courts! “Well Mr. Cotton, you ask us to set aside a conviction for criminal trespass in violation of TPC §30.06 simply because the sign references the old Black Statute (4413(29ee)) that was codified into the Government Code. You then argue that the ‘Not Applicable’ provisions of TPC 46.15(b)(6) still protect CHL holders, in spite of a reference to the very same repealed Black Statute - 4413(29ee).�
I do think there is a significant factual and legal difference. A property owner has a duty to post a proper §30.06 sign, if they want to exclude CHL’s. They can’t simply post a sign in 1997 and never bother to check to see if the law changed requiring a different sign. Remember the 1" letter to 2" letter example.
CHL holders, as all citizens, are charged with knowledge of current law, but they are not charged with knowing the history of a statutory provision. If a CHL is taught in their CHL class that a §30.06 sign requires certain specific language, and this is supported by reading a current copy of TPC §30.06, then that CHL can only be presumed to know the law as it currently exists, not as it existed in prior years.
Regarding TPC §46.15(b)(6), a CHL holder has a right to rely upon the State of Texas in the issuance of a CHL. If they comply with the requirements of the Gov’t Code and DPS regulations and obtain a CHL and carry a handgun pursuant to what they were taught by a CHL Instructor trained and certified by the State of Texas, then justice demands adherence to the procedure for tracing a law from the Black Statutes to a Code provision, as described in my prior post. This is the easy analysis - it’s simply the way the law is implemented.
All this is purely a trial attorney’s arguments on behalf of CHL’s. They may prevail, they may not, but one thing is for sure, no matter how much I believe what I have stated here, I personally won’t cross a §30.06 sign solely because it references 4413(29ee). I’d much rather make these arguments on someone else's behalf.
Regards,
Chas.
