30.06 sign @work???

[C-dub]

I work for a large defense contractor and I can assure you we have proper 30.06 signs at the entrances to parking lots and all entrances to the facilities. They sent out a memo stating that the law allowed CHL persons to have firearms locked in their vehicles in accordance with the new law in Texas. This only applied to Texas facilities and beleive me when I say if they could have found a loophole to exploit to keep firearms out of the parking lots they would have!

What do they think about the part that says if someone is otherwise legally able to possess a handgun like under the MPA?

[Lambda Force]

Now I'm confused. SB321 says someone with a CHL or who can otherwise legally possess a handgun. Wouldn't that mean anyone carrying in their car under the MPA?

My mistake. The following only applies to CHL and not MPA.

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Section 52.061 does not:
(2) apply to:
(F) property owned or leased by a chemical
manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under
Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary
business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or
transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials,
except in regard to an employee who holds a license to carry a
concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and who stores a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by
law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a
parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer
provides for employees that is outside of a secured and restricted
area

[Right2Carry]

I work for a large defense contractor and I can assure you we have proper 30.06 signs at the entrances to parking lots and all entrances to the facilities. They sent out a memo stating that the law allowed CHL persons to have firearms locked in their vehicles in accordance with the new law in Texas. This only applied to Texas facilities and beleive me when I say if they could have found a loophole to exploit to keep firearms out of the parking lots they would have!

What do they think about the part that says if someone is otherwise legally able to possess a handgun like under the MPA?

I only addressed the 30.06 issue. The memo actually stated they would comply with the requirements of the new law!

[C-dub]

It's been a long day and I'm getting all turned around tonight.

Does or does not SB321 allow those that keep a gun in the car without a CHL (MPA) to keep that gun in the vehicle in their employers parking lot?

[Lambda Force]

It's been a long day and I'm getting all turned around tonight.

Does or does not SB321 allow those that keep a gun in the car without a CHL (MPA) to keep that gun in the vehicle in their employers parking lot?

Maybe. There are some parking lots that are not covered by the law, like school districts. There's also the subsection F rule that only protects CHL.

[C-dub]

It's been a long day and I'm getting all turned around tonight.

Does or does not SB321 allow those that keep a gun in the car without a CHL (MPA) to keep that gun in the vehicle in their employers parking lot?

Maybe. There are some parking lots that are not covered by the law, like school districts. There's also the subsection F rule that only protects CHL.

Okay. I'm slowing down a bit and have just finished my dinner. That could have been contributing to my slow head earlier.

So, exception (f) allows someone with a CHL to keep their gun in the car even if it is a chemical plant and they meet the three requirements?

[Pawpaw]

Can you post the statute that says that, please?

(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property

There are two key points.
1. Property. Not premises.
2. No specific language is required for signs.

You're welcome.

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

[apostate]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

Now I'm confused.

By extension, you seem to be saying that someone who violates a "No Soliciting" sign is not trespassing, because the sign doesn't give notice that entry is forbidden.

[Pawpaw]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

Now I'm confused.

By extension, you seem to be saying that someone who violates a "No Soliciting" sign is not trespassing, because the sign doesn't give notice that entry is forbidden.

No, I am simply pointing out that a "No <insert object here> allowed" sign does not automatically have the force of law. It is simply the property owner expressing their wishes, with no law to back it up.

If a parking lot had a sign at the entrance that said "No Fords allowed", would the police haul you off to jail for parking your Mustang there? Hardly.

Some signs carry the force of law. Most signs are just... signs.

[apostate]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

Now I'm confused.

By extension, you seem to be saying that someone who violates a "No Soliciting" sign is not trespassing, because the sign doesn't give notice that entry is forbidden.

No, I am simply pointing out that a "No <insert object here> allowed" sign does not automatically have the force of law. It is simply the property owner expressing their wishes, with no law to back it up.

I'm still confused. For the purpose of trespassing, what's the legal difference between a "No Soliciting" sign and a "No Guns" sign?

Assuming we're talking about people without some exemption (let's not muddy the waters unnecessarily) it seems the property owner's wishes are a key component of effective consent.

[Pawpaw]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

Now I'm confused.

By extension, you seem to be saying that someone who violates a "No Soliciting" sign is not trespassing, because the sign doesn't give notice that entry is forbidden.

No, I am simply pointing out that a "No <insert object here> allowed" sign does not automatically have the force of law. It is simply the property owner expressing their wishes, with no law to back it up.

I'm still confused. For the purpose of trespassing, what's the legal difference between a "No Soliciting" sign and a "No Guns" sign?

Assuming we're talking about people without some exemption (let's not muddy the waters unnecessarily) it seems the property owner's wishes are a key component of effective consent.

How many times have you read about anyone being arrested for ignoring a "No soliciting" sign? I can't think of one. Now if the person is told to leave and they don't, that is another story.

A "No soliciting" sign expresses the owner/business/responsible person's wishes, but that does not mean it has the force of law.

[Lambda Force]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

That explains everything. You're way smarter than all of the people who pushed for the 30.06 law and the associated defense to prosecution in 30.05. It was totally unnecessary because the sign I posted on the first page is meaningless.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Pawpaw]

Where does that sign give notice that entry is forbidden? Here's a hint... It doesn't. The section you quoted deals with trespass, not weapons.

Now you're welcome.

That explains everything. You're way smarter than all of the people who pushed for the 30.06 law and the associated defense to prosecution in 30.05. It was totally unnecessary because the sign I posted on the first page is meaningless.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Ah! Now we see! When you can't debate the issue, you resort to personal attacks.

Thank you for clearing that one up. It explains a lot.

[srothstein]

I'm still confused. For the purpose of trespassing, what's the legal difference between a "No Soliciting" sign and a "No Guns" sign?

I disagree with Pawpaw about the legal effect of the no guns allowed sing. It is expressing the owner's wishes that no one bring a gun inside the premises. The law under 30.05 is that you are trespassing if you enter without the effective consent of the owner. Clearly, if you enter carrying a gun, you did not have the effective consent in that case.

And yes, I am ignoring for academic discussion the effect of 30.06 and other exemptions.

The difference between this and a no soliciting sign is very little, but could be significant in one aspect. I can solicit by knocking on the door and not entering the building. In this case, I am not trespassing despite the owner's wishes. If I entered the building to solicit, I could be charged with criminal trespass also, for the same reason as above.

And yes, this would legally hold true to the No Fords allowed parking lot and my parking my F150 there also.

There is a difference between what you see in the real world and what the exact wording of the law allows. I cannot recall the last time I saw a No Fords sign (though I regularly see no motorcycle signs and do see those vehicles towed - the owner does not get arrested because the towtruck company is more interested in the money than jail). I also don't see people arrested in general for trespass just for ignoring a sign. Most of the time the cops try to avoid the arrest by asking the guy to leave instead, but that is different from what the law allows. I think it comes under the heading of the discretion allowed the officer as opposed to legal requirements though.

[Lambda Force]

Thank you Steve.