TexasCHLforum.com

these signs keep popping up down here in killeen, this one was found at putt putt here......is this a legal sign?????? help!!!!! :( :( i know its not a 30.06 but can a business post a sign like this and get me arrested for knowingly carrying?? thanx

In my opinion NO...!!! First time I have seen that type of sign.

They could mean they are giving you notice with the sign.



I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a holiday inn once

The old saying goes CONCEALED means CONCEALED.

Sgtbrod:
First, welcome to TexasCHLforum!

As to the sign, it's not Tx. Penal Code Section 30.06 compliant, so it should not be enforceable. Section 30.06 requires the express language set forth in the Code, as shown in subpart (3):

(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.

I say it "should" be unenforceable because some prosecutors think that close is good enough. This is sometimes true, but not when the statute states the language must be identical that that expressly set forth in quotation marks.

A few years ago, a handful of hospitals in the Houston area started posting "no-gun" signs, some of which came close to the required language. Before long-time Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes retired, he was interviewed on Ch. 11 news about those signs. He candidly and forcefully stated that, if the exact language is not used, his office would not accept any trespass charges against a CHL, because the signs were not enforceable. (Holmes was an ardent opponent of CHL who later admitted he was wrong and became just as ardent in his support of CHL holders.)

I'm an attorney and if I were faced with such a sign, I would chuckle to myself and go about my business. But, far be it from me to offer legal advice to non-clients over the Internet.

Regards,
Chas.

Perhaps it is a relic of the days before 30.06? Just after the bill was passed maybe and people were using 30.05 to keep CHL'ers out.

Just a theory.

dolanp is right, and I missed a question on my renewal test based on that sign. According to our CHL instructor that sign is as legal as the 30.06 sign, which doesn't make sense to me, but that was the correct answer according to the score sheet and no amount of arguement was going to change it.

jimlongley wrote:According to our CHL instructor that sign is as legal as the 30.06 sign, which doesn't make sense to me, but that was the correct answer according to the score sheet and no amount of arguement was going to change it.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the first time the DPS mandated course was wrong on the law. That sign is not “as legal" as a proper 30.06 sign. (Also, it's not in English and Spanish, which is also required.) I vaguely recall an "answer" on the exam that was clearly wrong, but as you say, nothing was going to convince anyone.

Regards,
Chas.

I am an instructor and don't recall a wrong answer on the key. I will check this week.

txinvestigator wrote:I am an instructor and don't recall a wrong answer on the key. I will check this week.

I took my renewal course in 2002, so it may have been corrected. If I remember correctly, the initial course I took in 1996 taught that deadly force could only be used to defend your life, or someone else. That an excellent policy, but it was an incorrect statement of Texas law.

Regards,
Chas.

thank you all for you replies and the kind welcome!! so if i am reading correct, thisis NOT a proper"no carry" sign?????? but if this sign was legal before the law change, does that stil;l make it legal????? my wife works at this establishment and i would really like to know, because she works late sometimes and i go and pick her up.. there is no chance in heck that im leaving my gun at home!! and her finding a new job is not an option.......thanx again

I teach that it's not a legal sign and don't remember any test questions that ever said it was, not since 1997, any way.
A young lawyer at the DPS in 2003 ( not sure, but I belive the name was Jean Oshan ) indicated that she thought any sign that "contained the Language" might be good, I'm not sure just what she meant and didn't ask, I prefer the way we were taught when 30.06 first came out in 97, they said language "identical to the following" just as Charles wrote.
Tom

txinvestigator wrote:I am an instructor and don't recall a wrong answer on the key. I will check this week.

There are two questions that use a sign quoting "4413 (29ee)" as an example, I actually got both of them wrong because the instructor had just spent time pointing out that 30.06 was the only legal sign.

I believe I got them right the first time through because that instructor, a different one, had told us to be careful of signs that quoted the law differently "(HINT HINT, WINK WINK)" That first instructor was also the one who told us that DPS said we should not send our apps Certified, Return Receipt while nodding vigorously.

If 30.06 it doesn't say, then carry your shooting iron you may!

4t5 wrote:If 30.06 it doesn't say, then carry your shooting iron you may!

hahaha nice one! :D

ElGato wrote:I prefer the way we were taught when 30.06 first came out in 97, they said language "identical to the following" just as Charles wrote.Tom

Looks like more than one person has trouble understanding plain English.
(Not you).

What part of:

"identical to the following"

and "(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.

are people having trouble with? Unless most people are really closet democrats and want to redefine what "is" is.

Along with "Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

thank you so much for the clarification! that reply is exactly what i was confused about...