Legal 30.06 signs to avoid

[SenileDavid]

And you base that assertion on what case law, exactly?

I based it upon:

Reponses from two CHL Instructors and upon common sense.

Of course, like I said: "It's all up to the individual and if he/she wants to take the gamble." If one wants to play Macho-Man.... go for it.

Personally, the last thing I want to do is split hairs with a judge or Criminal District Attorney over petty lettering size. It's much easier to take the sign for face value and take my business elsewhere.

[bdickens]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

[SenileDavid]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

[pbwalker]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

So your CHL instructor said letter height didn't matter?

[SenileDavid]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

So your CHL instructor said letter height didn't matter?

No, I did not say that. However I did say that one could get into a hair splitting issue IF by chance one's concealed weapon is seen in a place where they had a sign in plain view at the entrance due to lettering size and it can be considered unlawful carry.

I don't know about you people... Personally the best way to WIN a fight is NOT TO BE IN IT. (that's called Common Sense)

[pbwalker]

Personally the best way to WIN a fight is NOT TO BE IN IT. (that's called Common Sense)

And that is why I bow out of this thread...

[trig]

I may be wrong, but doesn't being charged and/or having your license revoked for carrying where a 30.06 sign is posted, require written, and verbal notice once you've been made?

If so, then why the big deal?

[SenileDavid]

I may be wrong, but doesn't being charged and/or having your license revoked for carrying where a 30.06 sign is posted, require written, and verbal notice once you've been made?

If so, then why the big deal?

Why take the risk if there is an alternative? Can't carry at store A, go to store B!

To each their own.... you are responsible for YOUR actions, If you want to carry in places that are prohibited and you strongly believe lettering size makes the sign "illegal" or ignorable... GO FOR IT!!

Bottom line, a GOOD attorney MIGHT get you off on the technicality but the prosecution could nail you pretty easily.

[RPB]

I may be wrong, but doesn't being charged and/or having your license revoked for carrying where a 30.06 sign is posted, require written, and verbal notice once you've been made?

If so, then why the big deal?

Either a valid 30.06 sign as written notice, or if NO valid 30.06 sign is posted, Written or Oral notice

(Oral, not "verbal" ... There is a difference)


Sec. 30.06. 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, Government 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(f).

(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.

(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 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.

I do agree, shopping elsewhere, because of the store owner's attitude, but not to avoid being arrested for something which isn't a criminal offense in the first place.

How many barefooted people get arrested at restaurants with signs "NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVICE" ? ... It isn't an offense if all the elements of a crime aren't met. And, I doubt any DA would accept charges where it is OBVIOUS no offense is committed, unless he really wants to get laughed at and get his City/County sued for violation of Civil Rights..

I base my layman's opinion upon over 25 years working in a Law Office as a non-attorney after deciding 3 times not to attend the law school which accepted me, and a statement by an Attorney (Charles Cotton) that "a "good faith arrest" cannot be made for something that is not illegal and that he, his officers and the city will be prime targets for a §1983 civil rights lawsuit."

Still, I agree that some District Attorneys don;t care what the law is ... based on that nurse arrested for carrying at her hospital which didn't have a valid sign, but she received "notice" but not "effective notice:". viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&start=15#p147976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bdickens]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

That's exactly what I'd call it. It is baseless conjecture on your CHL instructor's and his buddie's part and you parroted it here.

Whe question I asked earlier is what case law your assertion is based on. Here's a hint: none. There is no case law on the matter; that issue has never come to a trial. No one has ever yet even been brought to trial for UCW in Texas for passing a non-compliant 30.06 sign, let alone convicted.

Therefore, your earlier statement:

Truth is IF you want to nit-pick and defiantly carry anyway when the sign is clearly at the entrance in plain view and you get busted let’s say for example you're weapon was printing or what not, it IS considered UNLAWFUL CARRY and you will (or could) have your license revoked. Because to the Criminal District Attorney the lettering size won't amount to crap... the sign was there plain and simple

is either baseless conjecture and most assuredly not the "truth," or you are psychic.

[RPB]

I'd prefer an attorney's statement who is also a CHL instructor and has more common sense than most people I've met, over "just" 2 CHL instructors who are not lawyers.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&start=15#p147976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only way to prosecute a CHL for trespass is by using TPC §30.06. §30.06 requires the use of specific language to do so, if notice is given in writing. If the writing is a sign, then it must not only use the statutorily-required language, it must also meet the physical requirements of §30.06.

If she was given ORAL notice of a "no guns" policy, then she can be prosecuted under §30.06, as ORAL notice does not require any specific language. As yet, I don't believe anyone knows what notice she received.

Chas.

(Charles, I look the liberty and edited "verbal" to "oral" in your statement, under the rule of optional completeness, RULE 107, Tx Rules Evidence)
lol just kidding

lol
Respectfully,
Ron

[Hoi Polloi]

Any time the topic of CHL carrying at an unposted work location despite company weapons policy forbidding it comes up, it is said that a person is not committing a crime but can still lose his job. I think it is important to point out here that if the company policy that an employee signs when he is hired includes the specific 30.06 wordage that the business does not need to be posted and if a superior orally tells a person in any way that he may not carry a weapon on premises that it fulfills the statutory requirement, meaning the person does commit a crime by carrying at work, right? Most people will not fall into this category, but I would imagine some people do and that they need to be aware of it.

[RPB]

Any time the topic of CHL carrying at an unposted work location despite company weapons policy forbidding it comes up, it is said that a person is not committing a crime but can still lose his job. I think it is important to point out here that if the company policy that an employee signs when he is hired includes the specific 30.06 wordage that the business does not need to be posted and if a superior orally tells a person in any way that he may not carry a weapon on premises that it fulfills the statutory requirement, meaning the person does commit a crime by carrying at work, right? Most people will not fall into this category, but I would imagine some people do and that they need to be aware of it.

True.
1) Oral notice of any wording is enough
2) Language which is compliant with 30.06 in an employee handbook is (30.06 (c)(3)(A) a card or other document)... enough notice for an employee even if no sign is posted

[SenileDavid]

I do agree, shopping elsewhere, because of the store owner's attitude, but not to avoid being arrested for something which isn't a criminal offense in the first place.

How many barefooted people get arrested at restaurants with signs "NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVICE" ? ... It isn't an offense if all the elements of a crime aren't met. And, I doubt any DA would accept charges where it is OBVIOUS no offense is committed, unless he really wants to get laughed at and get his City/County sued for violation of Civil Rights..

I base my layman's opinion upon over 25 years working in a Law Office as a non-attorney after deciding 3 times not to attend the law school which accepted me, and a statement by an Attorney (Charles Cotton) that "a "good faith arrest" cannot be made for something that is not illegal and that he, his officers and the city will be prime targets for a §1983 civil rights lawsuit."

Still, I agree that some District Attorneys don;t care what the law is ... based on that nurse arrested for carrying at her hospital which didn't have a valid sign, but she received "notice" but not "effective notice:". viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12768&start=15#p147976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree all the way with you and am very much aware of the actual law (I've read it as well of having a copy that was included in my CHL class booklet) However, I find it pretty stupid being defiant over a small technicality like letter size to totally ignore the sign out of spite. Hey, I'm a CHLer too... I don't like them as much as the next guy/gal and I could understand the situation better if the sign was not visible or in fine print... but to go out with a ruler to measure the letters... come on!

You brought up exactly the type of crap DA's and LEO's do with the story of the nurse, like many other stories of athority abuse.. like this CHLerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6etkHuydfQ the point I've been trying to make is: Is it really worth nit-picking, being possibly exposed, given an oral/verbal warning? Why would any CHLer want to give his hard earned money to any place that has a 30.06 sign? (unless one doesn't have a choice). Common sense tells me to go elsewhere and to avoid a possible confrontation.

[SenileDavid]

So in other words, your assertion is merely baseless conjecture.

I don't know if you want to call what I've learned in CHL class from my instructor that has been teaching since 1995 http://www.texashandgunacademy.com/ and the same response of another CHL instructor "baseless conjecture". But hey, it's a free country.. GO FOR IT, be defiant; hopefully you're a smooth talker if you get busted.

That's exactly what I'd call it. It is baseless conjecture on your CHL instructor's and his buddie's part and you parroted it here.

Whe question I asked earlier is what case law your assertion is based on. Here's a hint: none. There is no case law on the matter; that issue has never come to a trial. No one has ever yet even been brought to trial for UCW in Texas for passing a non-compliant 30.06 sign, let alone convicted.

Therefore, your earlier statement:

Truth is IF you want to nit-pick and defiantly carry anyway when the sign is clearly at the entrance in plain view and you get busted let’s say for example you're weapon was printing or what not, it IS considered UNLAWFUL CARRY and you will (or could) have your license revoked. Because to the Criminal District Attorney the lettering size won't amount to crap... the sign was there plain and simple

is either baseless conjecture and most assuredly not the "truth," or you are psychic.

Well this "psychic" is not dumb enough to split hairs over something so stupid out of spite on a technicality, especially when I'm smart enough to go elsewhere that is CC friendly. I have better things to do with my time instead of spitting in the wind trying to find a safe trajectory that it won't come back and hit me in my face.

End of story.