Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[dolanp]

Call up the TABC. I have heard they are very quick to act on 51% signs that are put up incorrectly.

[dws1117]

Went on vacation with the family to our land outside of Nacogdoches. When we tried to stop at the visitor center I saw a no CHL sign by thier door. This same sign was also on the fire station and city hall. All three are on the same block.

The sign said "No Concealed Handguns" in both English and Spanish. Underneath that it was written Texas Penal Code 30.05 Criminal Trespass. It was also a very small sign.

Is this a legal sign? I thought that statute was 30.06.

Here are some pics.







The sign at City Hall

[Charles L. Cotton]

dws1117:
It has no effect on CHL's. I refer to that type of sign, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as being applicable to criminals and off-duty cops.

You're correct, PC 30.06 is the proper section dealing with CHL's, but the exact language from 30.06 must be used, it must be in both English and Spanish, and the physical requirements of the sign must be met. The sign in your photos would not apply to CHL's, even if they referenced 30.06 rather than 30.05.

Regards,
Chas.

[Braden]

I have a question regarding that. What if a place has the correct signage posted, with the correct size and language, but they only post it in English? I am guessing that I would have a hard time disputing it since I speak English, but do you think such a case would be dismissed on such a technicality as the sign not being written in Spanish as well? The Fort Worth Zoo is this way. They have the sign with the right verbage, but it is only in English.

[Charles L. Cotton]

In order to meet the requirements of 30.06, the sign must exactly meet the statutory specifications. If the sign is only in English, then it doesn't the requirements of 30.06 and should not be enforceable. Unlike civil statutes, penal statutes are interpreted far more narrowly, since life and liberty are at stake.

I am not aware of a case on this issue, but I will do some research. This is another situation where a LEO probably wouldn't make the arrest, if he/she were educated on the requirements of a 30.06 sign, and a reasonable DA would not accept charges. However, if a CHL was arrested for crossing such a sign and the DA accepted the charges, then the CHL would have to pay the tab to go to trial, and if found guilty, see if the appellate courts agree with my analysis.

As you can tell from several of my posts, I never suggest that anyone venture into uncharted waters, when it comes to testing the parameters of relatively new statutes. As a trial attorney, I love to be in court! I'll fight to the last drop of blood, but I am always aware that it's my clients' blood.

I wouldn't hesitate to cross a sign like you describe, but that's my decision, not legal advice to non-attorneys.

Regards,
Chas.

[Braden]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I just read through Section 30.06 again and I have to agree with your assessment. Tomorrow I will be taking my family to the Ft. Worth Zoo....which from what I understand has signage posted only in English. I don't anticipate a problem, but just in case, I'm going to take my camera with me to get a picture of the sign and I'm also taking a copy of Section 30.06 with me (and 30.05 too just for good measure).

Of course...unless a gorilla gets loose and I have to shoot it, they'll never know I'm carrying. ;)

Thanks Charles. Of course, if I get arrested I'm blaming you.

Here's an interesting article concerning the sign at the zoo:

http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/ ... worth_zoo/

If this gentlemen is correct, the land and the buildings at the zoo are owned by the city of Fort Worth. It is apparently leased by some zoo organization. As I understand 30.06, this apparent fact prevents a 30.06 sign from being legal anyway. Is that correct??

[jimlongley]

And Plano Independent School District, with non-compliant 30.06 signs at parking lot entrances.

[txinvestigator]

I am not aware of a case on this issue, but I will do some research. This is another situation where a LEO probably wouldn't make the arrest, if he/she were educated on the requirements of a 30.06 sign, and a reasonable DA would not accept charges. However, if a CHL was arrested for crossing such a sign and the DA accepted the charges, then the CHL would have to pay the tab to go to trial, and if found guilty, see if the appellate courts agree with my analysis.

As you can tell from several of my posts, I never suggest that anyone venture into uncharted waters, when it comes to testing the parameters of relatively new statutes.
Regards,
Chas.

I am glad to read that. Something we all need to consider is how much a cop really knows the CHL laws. I am a former cop, and a LEO supporter; however, I have experienced, first hand, what can happen when a LEO THINKS he knows the law.

Below is a copy and paste of an email I sent to our state association;

I had a little situation with one of Dallas finest while on a surveillance yesterday, and the experience bears broadcasting and consideration.

I was completely "darked out" with limo tint and Wal-Mart cling on tint, as well as the sunvisor in the windshield. I know that it is impossible to see inside my vehicle when in that configuration. It had been several hours, and I started the car briefly to allow the battery to charge and cool myself a bit. While doing so a neighbor walking his dog seemed to notice the car running (I drive a mini van that is very quiet and you have to be close to hear it run.). He was very close and began to try to see in. He looked concerned and I saw him write down my LP.

I was parked far enough away from my Subject that I was not really worried about them noticing me.

Sure enough about 1/2 later DPD arrived. They could not see in either, but in an attempt to expidite his departure, I opened the driver's door and made sure my interior light came on. I keep all of my PI and other like ID in an ID case, and my DL and CHL in my wallet.

I already had my ID case out, and I had my hands visible to the officer. As a former cop, I understand and appreciate the fact that the officer has a job to do, and he needs to accurately verify and document when he contacts a person alleging to be a PI. The officer asked me, "whats going on?" or words to that general effect.

I handed him my open ID case and told him I was a PI and working a case. His next question was "are you armed" I replied yes and provided him with my CHL. He asked the usual questions, wrote down some info, and gave me my ID's back and thanked me. He and his back up then stood at the back of my vehicle for a minute.

The contact officer then approached my door agaiin, so I opened it. He then warned that the next time they contacted me, I had better hand over my CHL immediately or they would "take me in". He then chastised me for having to ask for my CHL rather than me provide it with my other ID, and how they don't "play games with guns on the street". He went on and on about losing my license, blah, blah. Not wanting to get in a pissing match I could not win, I thanked him for his "break" and promised to comply. He and his partner then left.

As a CHL INSTRUCTOR, I am well aware of the law. If a Peace Officer or Magistrate demands your ID, and you are carrying a handgun under your CHL, then you must produce the CHL along with your State DL or ID card.

Texas Government Code


§411.205. Displaying license; penalty.

(a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the
license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands
that the license holder display identification, the license holder
shall display both the license holder's driver's license or
identification certificate issued by the department and the license
holder's handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display
the license and identification as required by this subsection is
subject to suspension of the person's license as provided by Section
411.187.


This officer NEVER asked for ID. I was not in violation of the law, and was not legally arrestable. If he had decided to arrest me, I would have won in court; however, I do not have the time, money or desire to go to jail to prove my point.

So be advised, LEO's may or may not know the specifics of the laws that affect us. We should take every precaution. I intend to place my CHL in my ID case from now on when on a surveillance, and I will always produce it, even if not asked for ID.

[Braden]

Update on Ft. Worth Zoo:

We went there yesterday and the sign they have posted is indeed a legitimate 30.06 sign....in contrasting colors (red and white), of the appropriate size, written in English and in Spanish and posted conspicuously just inside the main entrance to the zoo.

I still question whether or not it is legal to post the sign since the city of Ft. Worth apparently owns the zoo, but just to avoid problems I locked the gun under the seat of my truck and carried OC instead. I was pleased to see a strong police presence as well as at least three security guards that patrolled the grounds on bicycles.

It's a nice zoo....and I had fun with my family despite not being able to carry.

[rickb308]

Dallas Love Field airport.

Actually the signs are 30.05, which doesn't directly relate to CHL, but the language they use on the sign indicates that they expect it to deny CHL also.

City of Carrollton Animal Shelter. 30.05 Same as above.
Expect it to deny CHL also.

[dolanp]

CHL is a defense to prosecution for 30.05. I guess they could still drag you to court, but I doubt they'd have a case.

[Texasdoc]

there is a 30.06 sign at the Travel Mart in Del Vally just off Hwy 71 out of Austin . Plus he had a 51% sign and I called TABC and it was removed the next day.


So I say if you should find a sign that stops you from carrying ,they don't need your or mine money.


Paul

[AubreyCTurnerJr]

...[snip]...

Here's an interesting article concerning the sign at the zoo:

http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/ ... worth_zoo/

If this gentlemen is correct, the land and the buildings at the zoo are owned by the city of Fort Worth. It is apparently leased by some zoo organization. As I understand 30.06, this apparent fact prevents a 30.06 sign from being legal anyway. Is that correct??

I've been following this forum for a while now and decided to join to comment on this. I'm the one who wrote the post at the above link. As you can see from the comments, it's attracted a bit of attention. It turns out that this post is the number one hit on Google when searching for "Ft. Worth Zoo address."

Anyhow, this is a subject I've been wondering about ever since I ran into it with the zoo. I seem to recall a post on here somewhere that questioned the legality of posting 30.06 on city-owned property, even if it was done by the lease-holder. It would seem to me that if it isn't allowed, this would also invalidate the 30.06 signs at the Ft. Worth gun shows at Will Rogers (if it's city-owned, which I seem to recall it being).

[dolanp]

Wow I read some of those comments. LOL, some lefty wackos must have stumbled across that page by accident, they were spewing every standard uninformed piece of anti-gun bigotry the gun grabbers have come up with!

Anyhow, I don't see how these lessees can use the argument that they are leasing as an excuse. The statute says 'owned or leased by a governmental entity'. If the someone is leasing it from the government, that means the government owns it, so it should follow that they can't post. If the government is leasing it from someone else, same applies.

Seems pretty clear to me I don't get why there's even a misunderstanding. Maybe the zoo's lawyers are trying to ban guns for some insurance reason, who knows. Or maybe it really is 'for the children'...

[wrt45]

[It's something in the water in Lubbock, I guess. The Lubbock Civic Center finally took down their 30.06 signs, only to replace them with 51% signs. Someone explain that .............[/quote]

Was by the Civic Center today.............and the 51% signs were gone, replaced by the "Unlicensed Posession" signs that were what they should have had in the first place.

It only took a couple of letters to TABC, who responded politely and professionally, confirming that the signs weren't appropriate for the Civic Center and that they would investigate.