Sign at entrance to property (not door)

[Tic Tac]

If they are not a governmental entity, I'm sure the citizens of Plano would like to have their tax dollars back and reimbursement for past election expenses. /sarcasm off.

If they're not government does RICO apply to their scam?

[MeMelYup]

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a f irearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on w hich an activity sponsored by a s chool or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a s chool or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

PC §46.03, (a), (1) needs to be deleted, or the following needs to be added.

(j) It is an exception to PC §46.03, (a), (1) that the CHL is in the public portion of a school or educational facility while dropping off or picking up their child or ward.

[hillfighter]

There's no good reason to draw a line between a student drop-off area and a classroom. The same rule should apply.

I think neither should be prohibited locations. They should both be treated the same as libraries, shopping malls, etc. However, if someone is going to argue for prohibiting guns in classrooms, how can they justify guns in school playgrounds and student drop-off areas?

[USAFTS]

I'm having a hard time buying into the "intent" argument as it effectively nullifies the requirements specified in the law. In my layman's opinion, the law requires the business owner to abide by the law by posting specific signage that follows quite specific parameters. IF the business has followed the law, then we are also required to follow the same law by refraining to carry our weapons into their business. The only way both sides can be afforded equal justice under that law, is if both sides are required to abide by those parts of the law that apply to them. It is not logical that DPS can just deem a gun-buster sign to be lawful notice of intent, when the requirements for lawful notice are very clearly specified in the law. If the law was satisfied with just contrasting colors, it would not have detailed the minimum allowable size of lettering. The fact that different specifics are itemized, tells me that the law does, in fact, require the signs to follow each item specifically and does not merely ask for something close to show intent.

Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.

And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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.

[gljjt]

The 30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL because definition of "premises" does not include parking lots. <----Edit. I was wrong. It's because if you keep gun in your car and have a CHL, PC 30.06 doesn't apply because you're carrying under MPA, not "authority of CHL". And 30.05 DEFENSE still applies becaue you HAVE a CHL.

A very literal interpretation of what you state appears to be true. However, I suspect the intent in 30.05 for a defense to prosecution was for carry under authority of a CHL, even though not explicitly stated, and a 30.05 trespass arrest may be a possibility for the sign the OP posted. I would stay off the property with a firearm. I think there is high probability you are at risk for arrest for a 30.05 or a 30.06 violation.

From PC30.05:
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

[jbarn]

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a f irearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on w hich an activity sponsored by a s chool or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a s chool or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

PC §46.03, (a), (1) needs to be deleted, or the following needs to be added.

(j) It is an exception to PC §46.03, (a), (1) that the CHL is in the public portion of a school or educational facility while dropping off or picking up their child or ward.

Why? "Premises" means a building or portion of a building, and does not include any public or private street, driveway, sidewalk, walkway, parking garage..... It is defined in 46.035 and referenced in 46.03.

[jbarn]

If they are not a governmental entity, I'm sure the citizens of Plano would like to have their tax dollars back and reimbursement for past election expenses. /sarcasm off.

No kidding. And what were the public elections all about?

[Keith B]

If they are not a governmental entity, I'm sure the citizens of Plano would like to have their tax dollars back and reimbursement for past election expenses. /sarcasm off.

No kidding. And what were the public elections all about?

You have to understand one thing about the schools here in Plano. One word describes why they think they're special; Plano.

[MeMelYup]

There's no good reason to draw a line between a student drop-off area and a classroom. The same rule should apply.

I think neither should be prohibited locations. They should both be treated the same as libraries, shopping malls, etc. However, if someone is going to argue for prohibiting guns in classrooms, how can they justify guns in school playgrounds and student drop-off areas?

I agree. What would be easier to get passed? Then go for more?

[poppo]

In regards to the intent and the size of the letters, I too believe it MUST comply with the law. The requirement states:

ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;

IMO the "at least" is the magic phrase that does not allow for "close enough". If it said "about one inch" then that would be different.

[Deltaboy]

In regards to the intent and the size of the letters, I too believe it MUST comply with the law. The requirement states:

ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;

IMO the "at least" is the magic phrase that does not allow for "close enough". If it said "about one inch" then that would be different.

The Scott and White sign, Doesn't have contrasting colors and it's print is not 1 inch tall so in my book it is null and void.

[JKTex]

In regards to the intent and the size of the letters, I too believe it MUST comply with the law. The requirement states:

ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height;

IMO the "at least" is the magic phrase that does not allow for "close enough". If it said "about one inch" then that would be different.

The Scott and White sign, Doesn't have contrasting colors and it's print is not 1 inch tall so in my book it is null and void.

Regardless, what several aren't getting is that 30.06 only pertains to CHL's. If you're not carrying under the authority of a CHL, it's moot. A lot of people have worked really hard on Texas CHL laws over the last 2.5 decades to have some of the best in the country.

[bayouhazard]

Regardless, what several aren't getting is that 30.06 only pertains to CHL's. If you're not carrying under the authority of a CHL, it's moot.

The 30.06 requirements don't apply to MPA. Any kind of sign is good enough. No minimum size for letters, no special language, etc.

[jmra]

Regardless, what several aren't getting is that 30.06 only pertains to CHL's. If you're not carrying under the authority of a CHL, it's moot.

The 30.06 requirements don't apply to MPA. Any kind of sign is good enough. No minimum size for letters, no special language, etc.

If that is true, then the gun buster symbol that is often found on the same sign as the 30.06 language (just above the words) would prevent carry under MPA. Can you provide a link to the portion of code that keeps me from parking in a parking lot under MPA if there is a gun buster sign at the entrance to the parking lot? Not doubting you, just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

[gringo pistolero]

If that is true, then the gun buster symbol that is often found on the same sign as the 30.06 language (just above the words) would prevent carry under MPA. Can you provide a link to the portion of code that keeps me from parking in a parking lot under MPA if there is a gun buster sign at the entrance to the parking lot? Not doubting you, just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

A lot of people think a gunbuster sign is 30.05 notice. IIRC, that was the impetus for 30.06 back in the 90s.