30.06 sign on one door, but not another

[shawn]

I was going into HEB hospital a few weeks ago and I noticed a 30.06 sign on one door and not on another. I wonder what would happen in that instance if you went in the non-posted door (and got caught concealing). they were about 100 ft from each other.

[chamberc]

I was going into HEB hospital a few weeks ago and I noticed a 30.06 sign on one door and not on another. I wonder what would happen in that instance if you went in the non-posted door (and got caught concealing). they were about 100 ft from each other.

All entrances don't have to be posted. Only it has to be posted and visible to the public.

"Written communication" means either:
(1) a card or "other document" that has 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

(2) A sign posted on the property that:
(a) "includes" the above language in both English and Spanish;
(b) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(c) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Thus, according to the statute, a proper §30.06 sign must have language identical to that quoted above, and the sign must be in both English and Spanish. The letters on the sign must be block letters and they must be at least one inch in height. They must also be of "contrasting colors." Lastly, the sign must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

http://www.burger.com/gunfaq08.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shawn]

I agree with what you are saying, I just wonder if you would end up with some sort of hassel. you could see the sign from the non-posted door, although some with poorer vision may not have been able to read it.

[chamberc]

I agree with what you are saying, I just wonder if you would end up with some sort of hassel. you could see the sign from the non-posted door, although some with poorer vision may not have been able to read it.

It's a matter of if you want to be the test case. In your case, you've personally seen the sign and have admited to such online for all time. In a court case, your statement shows you know.

[HankB]

A valid sign "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

If it's not visible from the normal entrance you use, it doesn't meet the ordinary meaning of "conspicuous."

That a sign is posted elsewhere, hundreds, possibly thousands of feet away, is irrelevant unless it can be proven that you knew the venue was posted, however imperfectly.

[chamberc]

A valid sign "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

If it's not visible from the normal entrance you use, it doesn't meet the ordinary meaning of "conspicuous."

That a sign is posted elsewhere, hundreds, possibly thousands of feet away, is irrelevant unless it can be proven that you knew the venue was posted, however imperfectly.

That being said, in this case, he does know.

PS. Concealed is Concealed.

[mr surveyor]

I agree 100% with HankB. I think that the term "visible to the public" means at the entrance where public access is expected. It may be on the front door of the hospital, but if it's not on the back entrance that is more accessable to public parking, then it's a non-issue. What's the worst conclusion to a non-intentional failure to conceal? You would be informed of the policy, told to leave the premises, thus effective notice would have been given. I just don't believe that a place that posts on one of several possible entrances meets the requirement for public notification.

I know of a couple of places that fit this description, and have even discussed with the hospital security staff how they interpret the situation. One, in particular, was surprised that the admin had left the substandard size/color 30.06 language on the front sliding glass door while all the other entrances were bare. Most of the public never sees the front door as it's a long way from the parking areas. His opinion was the typical line "concealed is concealed" and their sinage is probably no where near enforceable.

surv

[chamberc]

I think that the term "visible to the public" means at the entrance where public access is expected. It may be on the front door of the hospital, but if it's not on the back entrance that is more accessible to public parking, then it's a non-issue.

The general consensus in the legal community does not agree. If the CHL holder is aware of a 30.06 sign at a business, then they are knowingly violating the posting.

It isn't something that has been tested, so whoever has to draw or shoot in such a posted location will be the test case.

Again, if you don't reveal your weapon, it would be of course a non-issue, but in this particular case the OP is aware and has made permanent record of his/her awareness. The bottom line is, the law does not specify "every entrance" so, like so much of our law, it will have to be interpreted at the time of trial.

The issue also becomes, sure, you might be right, but it might cost you a lot of $$$ to have a moral victory.

Another analogy would be, what if I exited a road, so as not see the speed limit sign and then re-entered said roadway. Does that sign apply to me?

Think about the line of questions "Mr. OP, were you aware that business XYZ had a 30.06?". At this point, Mr. OP can either lie or (hopefully)admit he was aware.
Then it is up to they jury/judge to decide if this awareness to prohibt confirmed written notice had been given.


Take for instance, Grapevine Mills Mall. Our family enters it every time through "The Children's Place" store, and I know 100% without a doubt Grapevine Mills mall isn't posted 30.06.

[C-dub]

ChamberC, you've inspired me to change my avatar.

[lazypineapple]

Think about the line of questions "Mr. OP, were you aware that business XYZ had a 30.06?". At this point, Mr. OP can either lie or (hopefully)admit he was aware.

and then the DA says " You Lie "

[HankB]

Think about the line of questions "Mr. OP, were you aware that business XYZ had a 30.06?". At this point, Mr. OP can either lie or (hopefully)admit he was aware.

He can
a) decline to take the stand, as his attorney would have already established that there was NO sign at the entrance he used;
b) claim the 5th Amendment;
c) explain that he THOUGHT the venue might ONCE have been posted, but upon looking carefully at the entrance and seeing no compliant sign conspicuously posted, he came to the very reasonable conclusion that management had changed their policy.

[mymojo]

Isn't the operative word in this scenario "hospital"?

[chamberc]

Isn't the operative word in this scenario "hospital"?

Hospitals are no different from any other place of business. They must be posted 30.06.

[chamberc]

Think about the line of questions "Mr. OP, were you aware that business XYZ had a 30.06?". At this point, Mr. OP can either lie or (hopefully)admit he was aware.

He can
a) decline to take the stand, as his attorney would have already established that there was NO sign at the entrance he used;
b) claim the 5th Amendment;
c) explain that he THOUGHT the venue might ONCE have been posted, but upon looking carefully at the entrance and seeing no compliant sign conspicuously posted, he came to the very reasonable conclusion that management had changed their policy.

To which the prosecutor says "Here is the OP's IP record of posting on the TexasCHLForum.com site, showing he was aware of the legally posted sign.

[HankB]

To which the prosecutor says "Here is the OP's IP record of posting on the TexasCHLForum.com site, showing he was aware of the legally posted sign.

IANAL, but If the prosecutor had the posting, wouldn't he have had to inform the defense in advance, since it was evidence in his case?