30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[PhilBob]

Is the chart in this link (http://www.txchia.org/txcarry.htm) still valid even though last updated in 2012? My confusion about gas stations and pumps versus the building itself is that with regard to schools the restrictions only apply to the buildings and NOT to any public or private driveways, streets, sidewalks, walkways, parking lots, parking areas, etc. A "workplace" does not include parking areas. Only buildings (premises) are referred to in regard to any kind of race track; courtrooms does not refer to the entire building and does not include parking areas and the like.

I know part of the confusion debate is the somewhat interchangeable use of the terms "premises" and "property". However, is a business property, the entire pump area, parking area, etc. of a gas station or other business considered "private property" even though the business is licensed and exists to be open to and serve the public when parking areas and the like are specifically exempted in regard to other areas? Can one walk around a Sprouts or any other business' parking lot or not if the entrance to the building is posted with 30.06/30.07 signs?

[ScottDLS]

Ambiguity of notice does provide a defense, but as a gun carrier, so does responsibility provide us a duty. There's nothing written that says you have to know every possible ambiguous scenario that surrounds your legal notice or lack thereof to carry on personal property, but there does exist some duty to become educated on where you might carry. I might hunt a vast open and non-fenced space, but I better know the boundaries between my hunt and off-limits areas that are not my hunt unless I want to explain my actions to others in Court.

I am not sure of the meaning of this statement. Can you clarify or give an example that explains what you mean?

See the example of the gas pump. Yes, if they post it on the door and not the entrance, you don't have good notice if you can't see it. If they call the cops and you get ticketed, that's your defense against the ticket. Is that automatic? Well, think of what the judge might say: "You are the one wanting to carry a gun on private property, you were trained what the signs looks like, you know they typically post them at the door, so why didn't you look there then pump?" So, what I mean is that I have a good defense that I can't look everywhere for signs before entering, but I also have a prosecution in that I do know where to look.

According to you. Not according to law. There is NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SEE THE SIGN for the fulfillment of the specifications of notification to you according to 30.06.

30.06b states...

(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.



tex

I think the more relevant part of 30.06b is "... provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

If an owner posts a sign in such a manner that prevents it from being seen (behind a bush, behind the counter facing away from costumers, in an employee only section of the building, etc.) then you, the actor, have NOT been provided notice. Using your logic of the sign not being visible, then a store owner that provides oral notice to one person has effectively provided it to everyone, because nothing states that you must be present to have heard the notice.

What he said.


...receives notice if....provides notice to (you).

[thetexan]

I must admit that I only scanned through this post but something that keeps jumping out at me. The topic header insinuates 30.06 and 30.07. Then someone makes the argument about "property" in that a sign anywhere on the property (assuming it is consicous) renders the enite property off limits... for example at the gas pumps when the sign is at the door to the building.

My question is how do we reconile that logic, seemingly bolstered by 30.006, with 30.07. 30.07 uses the same term "Property" but goes a little further and says it must be visible from each enterence to the property. Following that logic, is a 30.07 sign invalid because it is on the door of the building and may not be visible from each enterence to the property? As in many cases, where a gas station has side enterences to the "property."

Does the meaning of property change from 30.06 to 30.07?

Is it logical or illogical to use government meetings as an example. City council can post 30.06 signs in meeting rooms when meeting are taking place... Does that mean the entire building is off limits or does that mean the room where the meeting is is off limits?

Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(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 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; 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 at each entrance to the property.

Don't confuse the requirements for proper posting of the sign itself with the message that is on the sign. What if the sign said "NO ELEPHANTS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY" and the requirements for proper sign posting said that these signs had to be posted specifically on each mail box. The two have nothing to do with each other.

tex

[LucasMcCain]

For purposes of Texas state laws, the term "premises" does not include parking lots. In federal laws, it does. This is why you can't have a gun, licensed or not, even in your car in the parking lot at the post office. You can however, if licensed, have one in your car or on your person in school parking lots, even though you can't take it into the school building. It took me a bit of digging to make sure of this answer, but it does come from a firearms attorney. Hope this helps.

Edit: Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer, and I am often mistaken about a variety of things. This is not legal advice.

[Archery1]

Don't confuse the requirements for proper posting of the sign itself with the message that is on the sign. What if the sign said "NO ELEPHANTS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY" and the requirements for proper sign posting said that these signs had to be posted specifically on each mail box. The two have nothing to do with each other.

tex

Yes, if you understand how to read code books, they are related. "B", no matter what it says, must also have (i), (ii), & (iii) as a condition or what is says is not legal notice. If they are are separate unconditional, the legal language always specifies such allowed condition of non-requirement.

[Archery1]

Second edit for double post. 3rd time, I'm out!

[Abraham]

LucasMcCain,

Did you know Chuck Connors was also a professional basketball and professional baseball player along with being an actor?

[LucasMcCain]

LucasMcCain,

Did you know Chuck Connors was also a professional basketball and professional baseball player along with being an actor?

I did! He was just a pretty cool guy all around, as far as I have been able to tell. The Rifleman was by far my favorite western growing up.

[pt145ss]

I must admit that I only scanned through this post but something that keeps jumping out at me. The topic header insinuates 30.06 and 30.07. Then someone makes the argument about "property" in that a sign anywhere on the property (assuming it is consicous) renders the enite property off limits... for example at the gas pumps when the sign is at the door to the building.

My question is how do we reconile that logic, seemingly bolstered by 30.006, with 30.07. 30.07 uses the same term "Property" but goes a little further and says it must be visible from each enterence to the property. Following that logic, is a 30.07 sign invalid because it is on the door of the building and may not be visible from each enterence to the property? As in many cases, where a gas station has side enterences to the "property."

Does the meaning of property change from 30.06 to 30.07?

Is it logical or illogical to use government meetings as an example. City council can post 30.06 signs in meeting rooms when meeting are taking place... Does that mean the entire building is off limits or does that mean the room where the meeting is is off limits?

Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.

(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 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; 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 at each entrance to the property.

Don't confuse the requirements for proper posting of the sign itself with the message that is on the sign. What if the sign said "NO ELEPHANTS ALLOWED ON THIS PROPERTY" and the requirements for proper sign posting said that these signs had to be posted specifically on each mail box. The two have nothing to do with each other.

tex

Wait.. What...

Not sure i understand that.

Specifically, City council can post a 30.06 sign during City Council meetings correct? Those signs are usually at the enterence to the City Council chambers, correct?

If the Tax collector office is in the same building as the city council chambers, does that mean the tax collectors office is off limits because city council is having a meeting elsewhere in the building? After all they are on the same "property" correct?

[Archery1]

For purposes of Texas state laws, the term "premises" does not include parking lots. In federal laws, it does. This is why you can't have a gun, licensed or not, even in your car in the parking lot at the post office. You can however, if licensed, have one in your car or on your person in school parking lots, even though you can't take it into the school building. It took me a bit of digging to make sure of this answer, but it does come from a firearms attorney. Hope this helps.

Edit: Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer, and I am often mistaken about a variety of things. This is not legal advice.

I cannot seem to find anywhere, but do you have an understanding of why or what meant to us "property" in the notices instead of "premise" which properly defined.

[LucasMcCain]

Back on topic, and relating to my previous post, there is a difference in the law between the terms "premises" and "property." Premises specifically does not include parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, and the like. Property can include all areas owned by the entity in question. That said, I do not feel a sign on a building to be effective or conspicuous notice for the parking lot or fuel pump area. As has been mentioned, that would be up to a jury to decide, should it come to that. Personally, I would say that concealed means concealed, and if you have any doubts about the business's stance on open carry, just cover it up. Again, I hope this helps.

[Archery1]

Back on topic, and relating to my previous post, there is a difference in the law between the terms "premises" and "property." Premises specifically does not include parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, and the like. Property can include all areas owned by the entity in question. That said, I do not feel a sign on a building to be effective or conspicuous notice for the parking lot or fuel pump area. As has been mentioned, that would be up to a jury to decide, should it come to that. Personally, I would say that concealed means concealed, and if you have any doubts about the business's stance on open carry, just cover it up. Again, I hope this helps.

Thanks. The only definition of "property" is anything one can own. My computers are legal "property" of my business, but my "premises" relate to my areas. Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property. I just wonder why they didn't state "premises" on the Notices as requirement. I'm sure someone has a good reason, just never seen it.

[pt145ss]

Back on topic, and relating to my previous post, there is a difference in the law between the terms "premises" and "property." Premises specifically does not include parking lots, sidewalks, walkways, and the like. Property can include all areas owned by the entity in question. That said, I do not feel a sign on a building to be effective or conspicuous notice for the parking lot or fuel pump area. As has been mentioned, that would be up to a jury to decide, should it come to that. Personally, I would say that concealed means concealed, and if you have any doubts about the business's stance on open carry, just cover it up. Again, I hope this helps.

I agree, we talk about "walking past" a sign. If a gas station wanted the pumps to be off limits I would think they would post the sign at the private driveway(s) or at the pumps themselves. If they have it on the doors, I take it to mean they do not want it in the store portion specifically.

I used the City Council meeting as an example because this does happen. The post 30.06 signs to indicate that they do not want CC in the chambers during the meeting, but that by no mean indcate that the rest of the building is off limits. Simply because the code uses the term "property."

[pt145ss]

True story...

There is a gas station down the street from my house, after 1/1/16 they posted both 30.06 and 30.07 (both compliant) on the glass next to the entrance door. They have since taken down the 30.06 and only have 30.07 posted. By all means this is effective notice.

Question, are the pumps, sidewalks, and public entering driveways off limits because there is a 30.07 sign on the entrance door?

2, Last week, an employee (I assume) in their infinite wisdom decided that they would park a hand truck with firewood right in front of the 30.07. It’s been there ever since. The sign is posted according to 30.07 but with the hand truck in the way, is it effective notice? Some may see it, if they are looking for it.

[Caliber]

Even in the Property Code, property is any and everything one can own, and you need to state "real property" to define land and improvements from just property.

"Real property" and "real estate" are not the same things and the term you are looking for is "real estate". "Real estate" is land and basically everything that's attached to it. "Real property" means rights to use property as in a lease or an easement.