30.06 (c) (3) (A) - "other document"

[A-R]

So I noticed a 30.06 posting recently that gave me pause. I'd like some clarification from those who know this section well.

Entered a business premises, no sign of any kind at entrance. At front reception area, noticed off to the side and out of the way an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper in a clear plastic holder setting on the countertop. On this piece of paper in fairly standard "letter-size" computer type (maybe 12-point?) was the the word-for-word Section 30.06 language.

What has me worried is that this was not necessarily a "sign", but could easily be construed as an "other document". We are all very familiar with the detailed specifications of a proper 30.06 SIGN - as spelled out in Section 30.06 (c) (3) (B) .... but the "card or other document" specified in Section 30.06 (c) (3) (A) is not nearly so specific. Somewhere in the back of my mind I thought this "card or other document" had to "be presented" to the CHL holder. But nowhere does the statute say this. In section (b) it stipulates "provides notice to the person by oral or written communication", then defines "written communication" as either (A) "card or other document" or (B) the specifics of the sign we all know by heart.

So my question: was I given proper notice under 30.06 when I happened to see this 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper setting atop the counter? Should I have turned around and departed the premises immediately? Also, this particular "office" is part of a much larger commercial office building. This business has multiple "suites" inside this office building. If this sign does prohibit my carry, does it do so only in this office suite? Or in all office suites occupied by this business? Does each "suite number" require it's own specific 30.06 posting if the whole building is not posted?

For now I am not going to name the specific business as I don't want to publish where I saw this in order to maintain some plausible deniability ("but I never saw that little piece of paper"). I may not have the option to simply boycott this business. I have to enter it occasionally.

Citing the relevant 30.06 sections in their entirety

(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 holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun 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.

[C-dub]

I don't think this is legal notice, but can't cite any legal reason why. Since it is posted like a sign, I would say it is a sign and since it doesn't meet the specifications outlined I would say it is not legal notice. However, not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not even in the legal field.

[ScottDLS]

I guess it comes down to whether they "provided" you with written notice. Seems to me the intent is for them to hand you this written notice, point it out to you, or have you acknowledge that you read it. Putting it under a plastic case sounds more like a "sign" to me. Especially if you had to discover it vs. them saying..."Did you read this?"

If it were me I'd ignore, but I wouldn't make a point of it with them, lest they provide you with verbal notice.

[A-R]

I wouldn't make a point of it with them, lest they provide you with verbal notice.

no sense rocking the boat if the sign/document is legally meaningless anyway.

Any of the resident lawyers/legal scholars/CHL instructors/LEOs on the site want to give an opinion? I'm really on the fence on this one, and it's a place I do need to visit from time to time.

[Purpletj]

I would say no. As I was instructed along with everyone else. The proper posting had the be at the front entrance in the standard 1in. block letters. I don't consider an 8.5x11 framed sheet of paper sitting on a desk in the lobby of a building as legal notice.

[frogbones]

I would say no. As I was instructed along with everyone else. The proper posting had the be at the front entrance in the standard 1in. block letters. I don't consider an 8.5x11 framed sheet of paper sitting on a desk in the lobby of a building as legal notice.

Yep, . If it isn't posted in format and in plain sight as I enter the premises it holds no legal weight.....plus no one would know I'm carrying anyway. If it was legally posted in format, in plain sight as I enter the premise...I would have to disarm back @ my car. When it is posted in proper format and all, it is hard to miss...it's an ugly sign.

[srothstein]

I think there are two points to be considered. The display of a paper meets the requirements of a sign, in my opinion. I take card or other document to mean something handed specifically to you, such as a contract, and employee handbook, a set of visitors rules, etc.

The second is the location. Contrary to everyone else here, I do not see the requirement for the sign to be on the door to the building. The posting in the reception area would be good enough (assuming ti were a legal sign). The only difference I see is the area being covered by the sign. If it is on the front door, you cannot carry into the building. If it is in the reception area like you describe, you cannot carry into the work area of the building. You could legally carry to the point of the sign, but no further. I base this conclusion on the wording of the law saying the sign must be posted "on the property". It does not say it has to be posted by the front door or by every door. But you cannot receive notice until you get to the sign, so I interpret it as applying from that point on. I could see where a business might not want to ban for every customer who stopped in but would want to disarm people coming further back for some special reason (a store combined with the headquarters business offices for example might leave the store open and ban from the offices).

So, in the case you gave, I think the sign is a sign and thus not valid (not meeting size specification). If it had been valid, it would only apply from that point further and not cover the reception area.

[A-R]

I think there are two points to be considered. The display of a paper meets the requirements of a sign, in my opinion. I take card or other document to mean something handed specifically to you, such as a contract, and employee handbook, a set of visitors rules, etc.

The second is the location. Contrary to everyone else here, I do not see the requirement for the sign to be on the door to the building. The posting in the reception area would be good enough (assuming ti were a legal sign). The only difference I see is the area being covered by the sign. If it is on the front door, you cannot carry into the building. If it is in the reception area like you describe, you cannot carry into the work area of the building. You could legally carry to the point of the sign, but no further. I base this conclusion on the wording of the law saying the sign must be posted "on the property". It does not say it has to be posted by the front door or by every door. But you cannot receive notice until you get to the sign, so I interpret it as applying from that point on. I could see where a business might not want to ban for every customer who stopped in but would want to disarm people coming further back for some special reason (a store combined with the headquarters business offices for example might leave the store open and ban from the offices).

So, in the case you gave, I think the sign is a sign and thus not valid (not meeting size specification). If it had been valid, it would only apply from that point further and not cover the reception area.

Great points Steve. Thanks. On the area covered by the sign, couldn't there also be an argument that yes it was OK to enter because you hadn't read the sign yet. But once you've read the sign (assuming it's legit), you have now been given notice and must vacate. Plus on your next visit to this property, you already know it is posted and thus should not carry again (or am I extrapolating this too far?) ... this is an area I've always thought they should specify to clear up confusion because I have seen legit/legal signs posted INSIDE a building and wondered if I could carry up to that point or or if the entire building was off limits.

Also would be nice if the legislature clarified the meaning of "card or other document" and how it must be presented to the CHL holder.

[boomerang]

Thanks. On the area covered by the sign, couldn't there also be an argument that yes it was OK to enter because you hadn't read the sign yet.

I don't think so. If a building owner posts a valid sign at the front door, and you don't see it because you're texting on your phone as you walk past, that's your fault. But maybe your lawyer can convince the jury of your viewpoint. Nobody knows until there's case law.

[C-dub]

Steve, are you saying that an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with text in a 12 font meets the requirements of "a sign" or that it meets the requirements of the 30.06 sign?

I agree that it is "a sign", but I don't see how it could meet the specifications as defined in 30.06.

[joe817]

In reading austinrealtor's post, I had to ask myself why is there a little notice on the reception area counter and not on the building's entrance to the outside? Unless I'm entirely missing the point here(which is very possible), maybe something else is going on here.

If the "building" is a multi-tenant office building, and there is no 30.06 sign on the door to the entrance of the office building, then perhaps the owners(of the building) or the management company opted NOT to post that sign(or they are unaware of the laws regarding CHL). If that is the case then is logical to conclude that one of the tenants of the office building does not want a CHL holder to enter their office suite, and thus a "posting" of the 30.06 notice at the front desk reception area. They have no other option that I can think of.

On the other hand, if the building is entirely occupied by one tenant, then I have to agree, it makes no sense NOT to post at the front entrance door, and only at the reception desk.

Am I missing something here?

[Liberty]

Steve, are you saying that an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with text in a 12 font meets the requirements of "a sign" or that it meets the requirements of the 30.06 sign?

I agree that it is "a sign", but I don't see how it could meet the specifications as defined in 30.06.

I didn't read that into what he said at all.

[mikeintexas]

The statute says 1" letters and English and Spanish. One sheet of 8.5x11 paper won't hold all that. I'd say it doesn't fall under "other document."

If the company wishes to keep CHL holders out while armed, I agree they should do the research and put up a legal sign on the front doors of their building or suites, instead of a copy/paste half hearted attempt.

[C-dub]

Steve, are you saying that an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with text in a 12 font meets the requirements of "a sign" or that it meets the requirements of the 30.06 sign?

I agree that it is "a sign", but I don't see how it could meet the specifications as defined in 30.06.

I didn't read that into what he said at all.

I was only asking Steve to clarify his asertation that the paper is a sign, but that it does not meet the 30.06 requirements of a sign. I certainly could have read way too much into his post.

[Keith B]

Steve, are you saying that an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with text in a 12 font meets the requirements of "a sign" or that it meets the requirements of the 30.06 sign?

I agree that it is "a sign", but I don't see how it could meet the specifications as defined in 30.06.

I didn't read that into what he said at all.

I was only asking Steve to clarify his asertation that the paper is a sign, but that it does not meet the 30.06 requirements of a sign. I certainly could have read way too much into his post.

I believe he is stating it meets the requirements of a sign, but said it does not meet the legal requirements required of a proper 30.06 sign. And the fact it is a posted sign, it also does not meet the requirements of written notice provided by the owner.