TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

pt145ss wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I would only carry concealed in my car if the parking lot was posted, because then I wouldn't be violating 30.06, since I would not be carrying under the authority of my LTC.

Does carry via MPA exempt you from the federal gun free zone stuff? Just curious.

Technically no, but your LTC does even if not carrying under its authority for state law puposes

Right On.


(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

XnTx wrote:I've wondered about gas stations as well. If I pay at the pump totally unaware of what is posted on the building, what happens when the CC receipt fails to print? I cannot legally go in the building to get the receipt. I cannot see hitting the help button and asking for my receipt to be brought to me. So I guess my obvious answer is to disarm, get my receipt, re-arm, and never come back. I don't like that.

Sure you can, just put your handgun in trunk of car. Then you are no longer carrying under CHL authority and can remain on property. No different than any other 30.06 place.

pt145ss wrote: why would posting .06 on the front door of a gas station, automatically extend to the gas pumps?

What makes you think "property" is a synonym for "building"?

If the gas station owner stands at the front door to his building (where the 30.06 sign is) and says "Get Off My Property!" Do you think that means you can continue to stay on his property and pump gas?

As I pointed out earlier, Section 30 of the Penal Code Defines "Building":

(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

If the legislature had wanted the sign to apply only to the "building" don't you think they would have used that word instead of "property"? If you look elsewhere in the code they do not use "property". They use and define "premise". It seems obvious to me they are making a clear distinction.

jkurtz wrote:

Solaris wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Archery1 wrote: Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

Earlier you stated:

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever.

My point was that just because something is posted or marked, does not mean it is done in an effective manner, thus not providing notice.

A "lawfully posted" sign is "conspicuously posted", meets size, contrast, wording, etc.

jkurtz wrote:

Solaris wrote:

Archery1 wrote: Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

There is a big difference between someone claiming that they couldn't see a sign (or paint) and someone that actually could not see the sign (or paint). If a business owner posts signs in such as way that costumers cannot see the signs then notice was not given. To say that someone breaks the law because they enter a building with posted signs, despite the fact that the signs are not visible, is no different than stating that someone breaks the law if they enter a building after oral notice was given, despite the fact that they were not present to hear such notice.

Those posts were in the context of "conspicuously posted". You are referencing "signs are not visible"

Archery1 wrote: Correct, now we get right back to "conspicuously posted".

Your 30:05 is not that applicable, because your fence is also effective notice, and someone would have to cross it.

I wrote "fence & purple paint"

Very applicable as folks have claimed not to see the purple paint where there is no fence. They got a free ride in GW pickup truck.

Archery1 wrote:

WildBill wrote:I am a believer in common sense, but I think this thread is about the law. There are different laws about posting signs on a property and carrying on a premise. If you read about 30.06 postings they talk about property.
My common sense tells me that you can not enter a premise without first entering the property.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

Thanks, WildBill. That's exactly how I have been expressing it. I can enter the property and stay there up until I am told to leave or see the Notice telling me to leave. Up until that point, I am not trespassing and won't be unless I fail to leave. My common sense told me this too, as that's why I was responding to others who suggested the Notices were effective notice just by being posted. My common sense tells me that if I have not been told or cannot see the sign, the property owner has failed to communicate the message to me properly.

This is incorrect. If the sign is lawfully posted, you are trespassing whether you see it or not. Same for 30.05, purple paint, whatever. There are business that post 30.06 and hire O/D LEO to patrol. If they see you with a gun, you get arrested. Tell it to the judge you did not see the sign.

eta

I use fence & purple paint on my ranch. Game Warden sees you, he arrests you. GW knows my property is legally posted, he does not care if you saw signs, paint or even know about it.

pt145ss wrote: Please explain to me...

If a valid 30.06 sign means the entire property is off limits. Then a 30.06 sign in fornt of City Council chambers during a meeting, means the tax collector's office is also off limits because it is on the same property as City council chambers. Correct?

No.

Unfortunately the legislature mandates use of 30.06 sign even on for places it is not OK. This creates confusion. In your specific case the TC office is OK since it is not 46.03 or 46.035 as listed in 30.06.

There is also effective consent. The gas station can post 30.06 and then tell folks CC/OC is OK as long as you do not come in the building.

tiger1279 wrote:If this has been covered already, my apologies - I missed it. My question is this: do the signs being posted on the doors of the gas station store/cashier building prohibiting carry, both open and concealed, extend to the pump area as well? Can I pump gas while carrying if I never enter the building? I guess this is the old premises vs. property issue. Sorry if this has been talked about before.

I disagree with the above posts (eta except thetexan posted after I started my response). The Law is quite clear:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

It clearly says "property". It does not say "building". If they had wanted it to say "building", they would have used the term "building" as it is defined in Section 30:

Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.

But they did not use the term "building" when they clearly could have, instead they used the term "property".