Library Carry

[Wisewr]

I just want to be absolutley sure I understand this correctly before I test this. When it comes to carrying in a public library, such as the Sterling Municipal Library in Baytown, even if they have a 30.06 sign posted (and they do have one posted), can you still carry? I looked the law up and here is what I found and understand it says we can carry: "(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." This was under section 30.06. Now, I know we all say concealed is concealed and that means you shouldn't be able to tell you have a gun on. I believe to the average person this is true. But an LEO might be able to spot a small bulge and has the right to question you about it and if it is illegal to be carrying, you could get in trouble. I mention the LEO because as soon as you walk into the library he/she is sitting right there at the entrance, although usually on the computer and not paying attention to anything or anyone, but nevertheless still there. Also, what if a local school is having a field trip at the library, does that then change the circumstances? And if so, then if a school has a field trip ANYWHERE, does that then make carrying at that place off limts at that time? Thanks in advance.

[bdickens]

You are correct. The city is specifically prohibited from posting 30.06 on city property. Their sign it therefore illegal.

[dicion]

On the school thing, Charles has given his professional opinion on it in another thread.

According to him, the 'location of a school function' clause does not apply outside of school property, due to the legal requirements of a statute, among other things.
So a school function, Not on school property, does not prevent you from carrying, according to his legal opinion as a professional lawyer versed in firearms and CHL law.

Good enough for me.

[Keith B]

On the school thing, Charles has given his professional opinion on it in another thread.

According to him, the 'location of a school function' clause does not apply outside of school property, due to the legal requirements of a statute, among other things.
So a school function, Not on school property, does not prevent you from carrying, according to his legal opinion as a professional lawyer versed in firearms and CHL law.

Good enough for me.

I may be incorrect, but I believe his view was that a school group showing up at a library, museum, zoo, etc while you were there would not make that place off-limits if you weren't participating in the school trip. However, I believe that if there is a school sponsored event that you are attending (i.e. school football game at a professional stadium, school concert at a public auditorium, etc.) you would be bound by the law and could not carry. IANAL, but that is my interpretation of what he implied.

[Reloader]

If you have to shoot, use a silencer so as not disturb the other people, since the library is supposed to be quiet...LOL! I just couldn't resist a little humor.

[Wisewr]

Allright. I know that this may seem stupid to some, it really is to my wife, but it just annoys me to no end that the sign they have posted is not legal. Anyhow, went to the library again tonight and talked to the officer on duty for a while. First off, he flat out told me he had no idea what the laws were, only what a card looked like and that the gun had to be concealed. Secondly, he felt that in a public building such as a library or something similar, you shouldn't need to carry a weapon. I didn't say it, but there is a reason we call it "going postal." So, all that to say this, he told me I should contact the Baytown legal department and see what they had to say, so here is my letter to them. I havn't sent it yet, so let me know if I need to add/delete something.

I have a question regarding concealed handgun license (CHL) laws. Particularly section 30.06 subsection 3 (e). It states: "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder cames 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." The question I have is about the legality of the 30.06 sign posted at the Sterling Municipal Library. This property is obviously owned or leased by the goverment and according to this section of law should not have a 30.06 sign posted. It also should not fall under the qualification of a school , which is listed in sections 46.03 or 46.035 as being off limits and does not require a 30.06 sign. There may be field trips conducted at the library, but there are also field trips conducted to the San Jacinto Mall and the mall would clearly not be off limits to concealed carry due to a field trip being there at the time. If there is something I am missing in the law about this, please state the section to I can read up on it and understand more about the restrictions I need to follow. Thank you for your time.

Anyhow, in writting this, I had another question of my own. Does section 46.03 apply to concealed carry? And if not, section 46.035 doesn't list a school as being off limits, only a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event. I know this was long, but if you read it all, thanks, and more thanks if you post a reply.

[wford]

You are correct. The city is specifically prohibited from posting 30.06 on city property. Their sign it therefore illegal.

Can you support this statement ? I followed this pretty closely back in the day and it was my understanding that a compromise was reached in the legislature where the
cities were not required to remove the 30.06 signs but that they would simply no longer apply.

[Sangiovese]

You are correct. The city is specifically prohibited from posting 30.06 on city property. Their sign it therefore illegal.

Can you support this statement ? I followed this pretty closely back in the day and it was my understanding that a compromise was reached in the legislature where the
cities were not required to remove the 30.06 signs but that they would simply no longer apply.

I believe invalid/unenforceable would be better choices of words than illegal. Nobody is going to get fined/tossed in jail for putting up 30.06 signs in government buildings. Although maybe we could get that on the agenda for 2011...

[Mike1951]

Two or three years ago, TSRA was asking for us to report government owned buildings that were still posted 30.06.

I reported both the Baytown Police Department and the Sterling Municipal Library. So it won't be news to them and they may not change anything.

Good luck!

[Wisewr]

Thanks for the replies. Mike1951, they might not change it now, but I figure it's worth a try again. And if there is some legislation like wford described, then they would be in the right to leave the sign posted, although unapplicable. Russell, I think I will use the form you gave. It would be requesting the legislation that wford is reffering to as evidence that it's okay to leave the signs posted and then we could share it with everyone here. Thanks to all!

[dicion]

On the school thing, Charles has given his professional opinion on it in another thread.

According to him, the 'location of a school function' clause does not apply outside of school property, due to the legal requirements of a statute, among other things.
So a school function, Not on school property, does not prevent you from carrying, according to his legal opinion as a professional lawyer versed in firearms and CHL law.

Good enough for me.

I may be incorrect, but I believe his view was that a school group showing up at a library, museum, zoo, etc while you were there would not make that place off-limits if you weren't participating in the school trip. However, I believe that if there is a school sponsored event that you are attending (i.e. school football game at a professional stadium, school concert at a public auditorium, etc.) you would be bound by the law and could not carry. IANAL, but that is my interpretation of what he implied.

His arguement hinged on a couple of facts, one of the most prominent being that the school had to have the authority to grant permission at a location, for it to be denied by default.
If the school had the authority to do so, which it may have at a football game at a privately/company owned stadium if they were paying to rent or otherwise use it, etc, then it could very well fall under this.
However, a publically owned auditorium, if used by the school, without rental or other agreement, I don't believe the school would have that authority, so in that case it would not.

Basically, unless the school had legal authority to grant permission on a property, it is not denied by default.

[bdickens]

You are correct. The city is specifically prohibited from posting 30.06 on city property. Their sign it therefore illegal.

Can you support this statement ? I followed this pretty closely back in the day and it was my understanding that a compromise was reached in the legislature where the
cities were not required to remove the 30.06 signs but that they would simply no longer apply.

Here ya go:

PC 930.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Govemment Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(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(9.
(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, Govemment 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder cames 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.

[emphasis mine]

Therefore, the government entity does not have the authority to post the 30.06 sign in the first place. If they are acting outside the law, then they are breaking the law.

[Wisewr]

I sent the Open Records Request Form out today around 0700. We'll see how long it takes to get an answer. Anyone want to start placing bets?

[wford]

The fact that they created an exception pretty much proves my point.

You are correct. The city is specifically prohibited from posting 30.06 on city property. Their sign it therefore illegal.

Can you support this statement ? I followed this pretty closely back in the day and it was my understanding that a compromise was reached in the legislature where the
cities were not required to remove the 30.06 signs but that they would simply no longer apply.

Here ya go:

PC 930.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Govemment Code, on property of another without effective
consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(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(9.
(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, Govemment 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property
on which the license holder cames 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.

[emphasis mine]

Therefore, the government entity does not have the authority to post the 30.06 sign in the first place. If they are acting outside the law, then they are breaking the law.