TexasCHLforum.com

Mike S wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:57 am I believe TPC 46.035 no longer exists.

This caveat is in italics right above Section 46.035 in the 2021-2022 edition of the handbook:

Without reference to the amendment of this section, this section was repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 26(10), eff. September 1, 2021.

For future updates, I would propose the DPS just omits anything that has been deleted/rescinded to avoid confusion like this since the handbook usually isn't released until well after the September 1st changes take effect. Alternatively, if there's anything that takes effect after the handbooks release, highlight those areas with a bolder caveat.

This is one of the problems with the way our laws get passed. If two bills are passed, and one repeals the section while the other amends it, there is a legal question of whether it exists or not. It gets more confusing based on timing. If the bill repealing it was passed, then the amendment would not make any sense and one of the principles that law uses is that the legislature cannot pass a law that makes no sense (well, legal sense - they pass a lot of laws with no common sense). This is also how we get two different versions of a section of law.

It will all get cleaned up in the administrative bills in the next session. But it is confusing until then.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:29 amGovernment owned hospitals can post enforceable 30.06/7 signs because carry under (authority of) LTC in hospitals is prohibited in PC 46.035, if they post a 30.0x sign. Also, 411.209 contains a section allowing posting of government property prohibited elsewhere (than 30.0x) in the penal code. So government owned --- schools, hospitals, amusement parks (Dallas Zoo), Parimutuel Racetracks, and churches can be posted. I'll leave the question of whether there are (or can be) government owned churches for another day.

You are correct and I forgot about that section. I should have remembered better and have no excuse for this. I have even cited this before to show how you can be charged twice for one incident by charging you with both 30.06 and 43.035 violations.

I have to stop posting while my mind is occupied with other things and make sure i do better research on the subject before I post. This is not the first time recently I have made such obvious mistakes.

imkopaka wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:26 amWait, I'm confused. How does being on government property factor into the validity of the signage? I thought the AG opinion RE: Dallas Zoo basically said that private entities operating on government property have the authority to post valid signs. Am I missing something?

The opinion was very carefully worded and covered two separate points. The primary purpose of the opinion was if the law against posting signs on government property applied to private entities that leased the property. He said they could not be charged or forced to take the signs down under the law regarding government agencies posting signs. He did restrict that to some pretty specific conditions, including that it must be a hands off lease.

But the AG managed to slip into the opinion a warning. The signs are not enforceable because the law on whether they apply on government owned property still applies. I was referring to this in my statement about the hospital on city owned property. They can legally post the signs but they have no valid meaning.

KLB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:09 pm In my experience, virtually any healthcare or medical related facility will be posted. Doctors have to have enough individual variety that this isn't a coincidence. There must be some mandate somewhere.

Does anyone know where?

Well, sort of. There is a requirement in Government Code section 411.204 that all hospitals and nursing homes must post a sign banning concealed carry. It used to have effect also, but the ban on entering hospitals while carrying has been repealed unless they post 30.06/07. IIRC, this ban was part of the compromise to first get CHL passed in Texas. In my personal opinion, there has never been any industry as dead set against people owning guns as the medical industry and they fought hard to stop CHL. The big medical companies, like Seton, are still pretty much dead set against it and post almost all of their clinics and hospitals. As with any large group, there are individual doctors that are very pro-gun too and they do not post.

To give credit where it is due, I think the anti-gun bias is based at least in part on their medical training and the concept of first doing no harm. I also think it is actually more due to medical administrators and support staff and not the actual doctors. I know some doctors who are pretty strict and want to interfere with people's lives to stop risky activities like motorcycling and shooting, but I do not think they are the majority.

On a side note, a lot of the hospitals that get posted cannot be legally enforced. Seton has a lot of contracts running county hospitals which are on government property. I don't know if anyone has told them that it is not enforceable yet. I am really curious about the one in Austin, where the Dell Hospital is run by Seton and posted but is on campus property but funded by the city and county. Fortunately, I know most people with an LTC will not violate the rules, even when the rules are not legally enforceable or are in a gray area.