TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:42 pm

nightmare69 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:09 am Took my legal update from TCOLE and it spoke briefly about HB 121. What I gathered is the 06/07 signs are moot until you receive verbal warning to leave. Can someone elaborate on this? Thanks.

I believe someone misinterpreted the wording of the law. It is a crime to walk past a properly posted 30.06/07 sign. You can be cited for this with a class C misdemeanor ticket. This is a valid citation IF no other actions take place. For example, if you are carrying with your LTC and ignore the sign and enter a store. A manager sees the pistol when you reach for something. He does not approach you but calls the police saying there is a person in the store with a gun who ignored the signs. When the officer arrives and identifies you, you present your ID and LTC in accordance with the law. The officer asks if you are armed and you say yes. He can then cite you for the violation.

Contrast this with the same situation but the manager tells you to leave after he called the police but before they arrive. You leave the premises and the officer arrives and stops you outside of them. He could still cite you in the same manner, but you now have a defense to prosecution, meaning you should be found not guilty during a trial.

And for a final contrast, you are carrying with your LTC and enter the store. The manager sees you and tells you to leave. You argue about it saying there is no sign, or that the sign is not valid, or something. The police arrive and you are still inside the store. They can arrest you for a class A misdemeanor.

This is my understanding from reading the law and the TCOLE class on-line.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:05 am

nightmare69 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:09 am Took my legal update from TCOLE and it spoke briefly about HB 121. What I gathered is the 06/07 signs are moot until you receive verbal warning to leave. Can someone elaborate on this? Thanks.

This is probably due to the way they are interpreting the interaction between 30.06 (a)(2),(b), (d), and (g):

TPC30.06 wrote:(a)(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

TPC30.06 wrote:(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.

TPC 30.06 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

TPC 30.06 wrote:(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder was personally given notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed from the property.

The same interpretation would apply to the interaction between 30.07 (a)(2), (d), and (h).

You have provided effective notice if you can prove that the sign was posted per the law, however if a person ignores the sign, there has to be oral communication for them to leave, but if they leave they have a defense to prosecution. If they don't promptly leave, they can be punished with a Class A misdemeanor.

Example: A business owner with 30.07 signs properly posted visibly at every entrance notices someone enter the business with an openly carried handgun. The business owner doesn't want to risk a confrontation with the armed individual, so they call law enforcement to enforce the law. The police show up and provide oral communication to the individual who then promptly departs. The sign has had no effect other than providing the mechanism for law enforcement to get involved since the individual is now off the property and has a defense to prosecution.

ETA: TPC 30.06 (a)(2) and (b) quotations for context