Search found 4 matches

by jimlongley
Fri May 23, 2014 8:01 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Sign at entrance to property (not door)
Replies: 88
Views: 17102

Re: Sign at entrance to property (not door)

Keith B wrote:
gljjt wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
ScottDLS wrote: . . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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.
Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.
That's what they say. Here is what they have written. http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/312 ... LEGAL).pdf. Top of page 6.
Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting the link.

Jim, they have clarified it. I believe there is a letter from the head of security for PISD that states they are aware the 30.06 signs are not enforceable in the parking lots or grounds unless a school sponsored activity is taking place.
Interesting, and I note that the date of the aforementioned document is since the last time I communicated with them, at which time they reiterated that they are not a government entity and thus not subject to that portion of the law and that their opinion was that their non-compliant signs were good enough.

Good to know today because my wife's retirement party is this afternoon and I will be parking in the parking lot.
by jimlongley
Thu May 22, 2014 10:11 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Sign at entrance to property (not door)
Replies: 88
Views: 17102

Re: Sign at entrance to property (not door)

ScottDLS wrote: . . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.
CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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.
Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.
by jimlongley
Thu May 22, 2014 7:37 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Sign at entrance to property (not door)
Replies: 88
Views: 17102

Re: Sign at entrance to property (not door)

cb1000rider wrote:
jimlongley wrote: Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.
I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.
And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.
by jimlongley
Tue May 20, 2014 7:24 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Sign at entrance to property (not door)
Replies: 88
Views: 17102

Re: Sign at entrance to property (not door)

nightmare wrote:
asbandr wrote:If you could read it well enough to know it was a 30.06 sign and measure the letters, I think it'd be hard to convince a judge or jury that you weren't given effective notice.
Should the cops pull you over and give you a ticket for driving 52 mph when the sign says 55?

52. 55. Close enough!
Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

Return to “Sign at entrance to property (not door)”