TexasCHLforum.com

RioShooter wrote: A manager overheard our conversation and informed me that they plan to post the correct 30.06 sign in the near future.

That's exactly why many people advise against educating businesses that ban.

I hope you told the manager that you'd be closing your account as soon as a 30.06 sign goes up.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:
I get your point about 30.05, but after reading it I don't see how it could apply to an off-duty LEO entering a bank.

How could it not?

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
( . . . )
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
( . . . )
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section 773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances.
(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
( . . . )
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his person during the commission of the offense.
( . . . )
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

The defenses to prosecution under 30.05 are for "fire fighter or emergency medical services personnel ( . . . ) acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty under exigent circumstances", or CHLs. Now that I re-read that section, there's no exemption for LEOs even on-duty; I thought they were included with fire or EMS.

Unless there's code somewhere else exempting LEOs, if the signs meet the standard of "posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden", then a non-CHL who carries a handgun past a non-compliant sign commits a Class A misdemeanor.

I don't remember your specific title, but are you one of the "special investigators" mentioned above?

No, I work for the Bureau of Prisons. We have arrest authority under 18 USC 3050, but we're not listed as special agents, and we're not peace officers, so 46.02/46.03 would apply if not for LEOSA.

Kevin

RPBrown wrote:Kevin,
say it ain't so. Why on earth would you move to land of the snow?

It's better than being 20 degrees one week, and then 78 the day after Christmas!

But if you really want the reasons why, check my signature.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:Points are well taken but how does the little sign prevent off duty LEO's from carrying there?

I vaguely recall discussion of exempting TCLEOSE Peace Officers from criminal trespass statutues regarding handguns. I haven't paid a lot of attention to that, since I, like about 3,000 of my colleagues in Texas, am a LEOSA-qualified LEO, but not a TCLEOSE Peace Officer.

If you'll recall, PC 30.06 was a response to worry over what constituted "sufficient notice" for criminal trespass. And, non-30.06 signs don't apply to CHLs, but could very well apply to everyone else, whether they're criminals, travelers, cops, or other non-cop LEOs.

I believe that Hibernia's "No Firearms Permitted On Premises" sign bars me from entering their lobby, even though a CHL could ignore it. No problem; I do my banking at the ATM or drive-through 99% of the time anyway.

As I said, I'd change banks if I was staying here, but we're bugging out for New Hampshire by Spring of 2008. It's not worth changing banks twice within 3 years.

Kevin

Hibernia improperly posts (ghostbuster, plus "no firearms on premises"). They insist that they don't mind LEOs with guns, and were completely clue-resistant when I tried educating them that armed, off-duty LEOs were barred by their signs, but CHLs weren't. I got the email equivalent of a blank stare and babble.

But, they insist that they're just "complying with state and federal law". They're based in Louisiana with locations in Texas and Arkansas; neither federal law, nor the laws of those three states restrict carrying firearms in a bank.

They're idjits, but they're the only decent option in town. I'll be rid of them in a couple of years when I move to New Hampshire.

Kevin