Cities improperly posting 30.06 signs?

[jyatesmp]

Where does it say "30.05 does not apply to a CHL, if the only reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL is armed."?

It's called the doctrine of presumptive repeal. Also, in statutes, "the specific controls over the general." When TPC §30.06 was enacted, it provides the only means by which a CHL can be prosecuted for criminal trespass, if the reason they were excluded was the fact that they were armed..

Please show me where it says this. (Give me a Texas State Law link, statute or something)

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN states
e) It is an exception to the application of this section (not any other 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.

Nothing about private property. This is what I am getting at. No where in 30.06 or 30.05 does it say you are exempt from being prosecuted for criminal trespass if you hold a CHL. On government property yes, not private property. 30.05 states it is a defense to prosecution not an exemption.

You are a peace officer and are you telling us you have never heard this either in the academy or any of your 40 in-service courses?

The section you referenced (§30.05(i)) was added so that no peace officer could ever be excluded from any property in the state, even private property, even when they are off duty. (What an absurd law!)

Chas.

Edited to add: I left out fatal conflicts between statutes. If two statutes are in conflict, the later passed statues controls.

I did forget about this on conflicting statutes however the two are not conflicting. 30.06 is specifically giving a CHL holder on government property an exemption and 30.05 is specifically talking about anyone on any property (other than government property) and specifically making it a defense to prosecution for a CHL holder.

Please don't get me wrong. I agree with you and I would not take someone to jail for this. I am not trying to say a LEO is above anyone or should be. I am just pointing out what the two statutes say and feel the wording in 30.05 or 30.06 should include an exemption if the reason for being criminally trespassed is the fact you have a CHL and are armed. As of now it is a defense to prosecution and not an exemption. Still could go to court on 30.05, and in the 30.06 statute you are not going to court over it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Where does it say "30.05 does not apply to a CHL, if the only reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL is armed."?

It's called the doctrine of presumptive repeal. Also, in statutes, "the specific controls over the general." When TPC §30.06 was enacted, it provides the only means by which a CHL can be prosecuted for criminal trespass, if the reason they were excluded was the fact that they were armed..

Please show me where it says this. (Give me a Texas State Law link, statute or something)

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN states
e) It is an exception to the application of this section (not any other 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.

Nothing about private property. This is what I am getting at. No where in 30.06 or 30.05 does it say you are exempt from being prosecuted for criminal trespass if you hold a CHL. On government property yes, not private property. 30.05 states it is a defense to prosecution not an exemption.

You are a peace officer and are you telling us you have never heard this either in the academy or any of your 40 in-service courses?

The section you referenced (§30.05(i)) was added so that no peace officer could ever be excluded from any property in the state, even private property, even when they are off duty. (What an absurd law!)

Chas.

Edited to add: I left out fatal conflicts between statutes. If two statutes are in conflict, the later passed statues controls.

I did forget about this on conflicting statutes however the two are not conflicting. 30.06 is specifically giving a CHL holder on government property an exemption and 30.05 is specifically talking about anyone on any property (other than government property) and specifically making it a defense to prosecution for a CHL holder.

Please don't get me wrong. I agree with you and I would not take someone to jail for this. I am not trying to say a LEO is above anyone or should be. I am just pointing out what the two statutes say and feel the wording in 30.05 or 30.06 should include an exemption if the reason for being criminally trespassed is the fact you have a CHL and are armed. As of now it is a defense to prosecution and not an exemption. Still could go to court on 30.05, and in the 30.06 statute you are not going to court over it.

The "Doctrine of Presumptive Repeal" is a legal doctrine recognized in every state. It's in case law, not black letter law.

There is a conflict between TPC §30.06 and TPC §30.06, if the sole reason a person is excluded from property is because they are an armed CHL. TPC §30.06 provides the only way to exclude an armed CHL, if the gun is the reason for exclusion. TPC §30.06(e) removes the ability for a governmental agency or unit of local government to utilize TPC §30.06.

I think I see the root of our difference of opinion. TPC §30.05 can be used to exclude an armed CHL, if there is a reason other than the gun for excluding them from the property. §30.05(f) is included to give a CHL a defense to prosecution if he/she can show that the reason the property owner had them arrested was solely because they were an armed CHL. This is purely theoretical because you and I know it would not happen this way in the real world. If a property owner calls the police about a trespasser, the LEO is going to ask property owner to tell the trespasser to leave and he will make the arrest only if they fail to leave. If the property owner mentions anything about "no guns" then effective notice under TPC §30.06 has been given. If the property owner doesn't mention guns, but perhaps points to a generic (a/k/a §30.05 sign), the alleged trespasser doesn't leave and the arrest is made, he/she can use TPC §30.05(f) to defend against the charge because the requirements of TPC §30.06 were not met.

Again, this is theoretical because it would never happen this way. This is especially true for governmental property open to the public. If an employee calls a LEO to make an arrest for trespass, the LEO is going to ask why a person is being excluded from governmental property open to the public (at least he/she better ask). When the answer is "he has a gun" and the employee points to the §30.06 sign, the LEO cannot make a good faith arrest.

You're new to the Board, so you probably aren't aware of my background. I was a COP for many years and I'm not the least bit anti-LEO.

Chas.

[jyatesmp]

I've read up on your background and I agree with you 100% on the above explanation. I was just pointing out that one could be taken to jail under 30.05 on private property. A change in the wording to include the Case Law findings may need to be addressed. In the situation you have given this would prevent the arrest and save everyone involved time, money and stress. As I said I don’t ever see myself doing this unless I am left no other option. As far as on government property, this should never happen unless it is a place prohibited. Also don't get me wrong, I am very pro CHL. I just do not agree with some of the wording and/or restrictions imposed.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've read up on your background and I agree with you 100% on the above explanation. I was just pointing out that one could be taken to jail under 30.05 on private property. A change in the wording to include the Case Law findings may need to be addressed. In the situation you have given this would prevent the arrest and save everyone involved time, money and stress. As I said I don’t ever see myself doing this unless I am left no other option. As far as on government property, this should never happen unless it is a place prohibited. Also don't get me wrong, I am very pro CHL. I just do not agree with some of the wording and/or restrictions imposed.

This discussion has given me an idea for a language change in TPC §30.05. It would basically move CHL's the the subpart dealing with LEOs.

Thanks,
Chas.

[speedsix]

...go for it!!! appreciate each and every tweak y'all have worked into the law to our benefit...amazing how responsive Tx. legislators have been to make things easier on us...I've heard some stories from Ray about what you guys have done for us...thanks is a small word...

[packa45]

As of Tuesday the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality headquarters in Austin posted 30.06 signage at all public entrances. The signs are areof appropriate size to be compliant however it is a STATE government agency. The only time I can see the signs as being valid would be for their commissioners agenda and other such meetings. Is that a correct acessment?

[JKTex]

As of Tuesday the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality headquarters in Austin posted 30.06 signage at all public entrances. The signs are areof appropriate size to be compliant however it is a STATE government agency. The only time I can see the signs as being valid would be for their commissioners agenda and other such meetings. Is that a correct acessment?

They're not valid for the building unless there's a court inside somewhere. If there were some other activity being held inside that would be restricted, that's another thing but not related, but the signs still have no validity.

[packa45]

From my understanding the entire building could not be posted however the meetings held within the building can be posted. To my knowledge there is no court in the buildings but the commissioners agenda meetings are similar to administrative hearings, therefore for the meetings the rooms can be posted is the way I am understanding the scenario.

[Keith B]

From my understanding the entire building could not be posted however the meetings held within the building can be posted. To my knowledge there is no court in the buildings but the commissioners agenda meetings are similar to administrative hearings, therefore for the meetings the rooms can be posted is the way I am understanding the scenario.

Your interpretation is correct. The meeting can be validly posted, but not the entire building full time.

[JKTex]

From my understanding the entire building could not be posted however the meetings held within the building can be posted. To my knowledge there is no court in the buildings but the commissioners agenda meetings are similar to administrative hearings, therefore for the meetings the rooms can be posted is the way I am understanding the scenario.

Your interpretation is correct. The meeting can be validly posted, but not the entire building full time.

But wouldn't that type of meeting be restricted anyway and the sign not have any impact?

And if I understand, it falls under the same thing as a court, it's just temporary, right?

[Keith B]

From my understanding the entire building could not be posted however the meetings held within the building can be posted. To my knowledge there is no court in the buildings but the commissioners agenda meetings are similar to administrative hearings, therefore for the meetings the rooms can be posted is the way I am understanding the scenario.

Your interpretation is correct. The meeting can be validly posted, but not the entire building full time.

But wouldn't that type of meeting be restricted anyway and the sign not have any impact?

And if I understand, it falls under the same thing as a court, it's just temporary, right?

No. You can legally carry at a meeting of a governmental entity unless is is posted with a 30.06 sign. See sections (c) and (i) highlighted below

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its
income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate,
or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking
place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a
handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a
governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while
intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the
authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless
of whether the handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer
under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security
officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the
security officer's employment, the security officer violates a
provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or
outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for
use by the public that is located in a county with a population of
more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface
area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is
open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has
security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not
include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or
walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry
a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)
is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under
Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony
of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical
reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission.

[JKTex]

No. You can legally carry at a meeting of a governmental entity unless is is posted with a 30.06 sign. See sections (c) and (i) highlighted below

Ah, Thanks!! I always tell people, keep reading.... I need to keep reading.

[Sprite]

This weekend, Friday April 27 and Saturday April 28, the Crosby Fair and Rodeo grounds will be posted by an anti-gun nut for the Baytown Kennel Club show being held there. I have no idea what kind of signs will be put up but a Sheriff's Deputy on the
Crosby Fair and Rodeo Board supports this decision. The show chairman threatened me with arrest when I tried to inform him
about Texas law. Can't find anyone willing to stand up for our rights to set him straight.

[Keith B]

This weekend, Friday April 27 and Saturday April 28, the Crosby Fair and Rodeo grounds will be posted by an anti-gun nut for the Baytown Kennel Club show being held there. I have no idea what kind of signs will be put up but a Sheriff's Deputy on the
Crosby Fair and Rodeo Board supports this decision. The show chairman threatened me with arrest when I tried to inform him
about Texas law. Can't find anyone willing to stand up for our rights to set him straight.

This one may be legal to post. The only record in the CAD for taxes shows property for Crosby Fair & Rodeo Inc as the owner, not Harris County. Here is the link to the record http://www.hcad.org/records/details.asp ... bld=1&tab=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, if the county has turned this land over to a private corporation to run, then they can post it as they see fit.

[JKTex]

This weekend, Friday April 27 and Saturday April 28, the Crosby Fair and Rodeo grounds will be posted by an anti-gun nut for the Baytown Kennel Club show being held there. I have no idea what kind of signs will be put up but a Sheriff's Deputy on the
Crosby Fair and Rodeo Board supports this decision. The show chairman threatened me with arrest when I tried to inform him
about Texas law. Can't find anyone willing to stand up for our rights to set him straight.

Looks like crow for lunch today. Was it ever owned by Crosby or the County? Records show it's been under the same private ownership back to 2006.