TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:....
I ran into the same thing recently with a high ranking officer who tried to convince me that you could not cc in a church with chl. He brought back regs he obtained from the DA who also agreed with him. Of course they both had to eat crow when I informed them that the regs they were quoting had not been valid since 2004. They wanted to know how I had been able to respond so quickly with that info. Answer...iPhone and google. They had spent hours doing their research. Mine took 30 seconds. Go figure.

Technically since 1997...13 years and they still can't get it right.

austinrealtor wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

chabouk wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Best answer: "I didn't tell them, exactly. More like it was kind of obvious when I shot the armed robber."

Exactly...and in a situation like that, who cares what kind of sign they had? Sure beats being found dead, right beside the non-compliant sign with no gun. I have no desire to die and then have everyone say..."If only he had his weapon... and gosh, he didn't even have to disarmed... what a great upstanding guy he was"!

The real point I was trying to make is that unless a person is seriously lacking in their manner of concealed carry, these issues will never be an issue. Yes...if you get unlucky and lightning strikes, they will know your armed...IF you are forced to use the gun...but this suddenly falls again into the, "Who cares what sign I saw...at least I am alive", category.

It appears that some folks are absolutely paranoid about being discovered carrying a handgun. I say paranoid because it is an irrational fear. Nobody knows your carrying but you and the folks you tell.

Y'all are forgetting the other more probable - and ultimately more "dangerous" for us - way that we can be "outed" as having a weapon. For whatever reason (make one up, cops do it all the time) a law enforcement officer while inside the "no guns allowed" premises says "let me see your ID".



Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, so now you're up in front of a judge with not one but two distinct D.T.P.'s for two separate charges (criminal trespass and failing to property ID yourself to a LEO). Perhaps your case isn't looking so good anymore.

Obviously, I'm sort of opening up the worst-case Murphy's Law scenario here, but it's not as far fetched as someone purposely outing themselves or using their weapon self defense.

The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

austinrealtor wrote:

chabouk wrote:PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

If you go to trial and present your DEFENSE as evidence, the prosecution must refute your DEFENSE "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the same standard as for proving any criminal offense, only it requires that you present your DEFENSE as evidence. If we're going to get all wrapped up around a defense vs. non-applicability, I'll point out that the original CHL law in 1996 only provided a defense to prosecution for carrying a handgun at all. I carried...

There's about the same chance of getting successfully prosecuted for something for which you have statutory defense as there is for you to be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. I'm not saying it can't happen, and in each case you'll have to pay for your defense, but I'm not going to limit my activities based on something that might happen.

austinrealtor wrote:
Was just re-reading all the fine print in section 30.05 and I found this interesting and perhaps an additional problem for those who carry under authority of another state's license, recognized by Texas (such as Utah CHL for example):

section (f) basically gives defense to prosecution if the only "no trespassing" notice was for person's carrying a gun and the person doing so has a valid Texas CHL ...

Texas PC Sec. 30.05 wrote:(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.

"licensed issued under Subchapter H ... etc is what I'm interested in here. This would seem to only apply to a Texas CHL? But maybe not, need some of the legal eagles to help me on this one. I'm further swayed to believe it does only give a defense to Texas CHLs because later in the section it provides specific defense to prosecution for LEOs from other states, but NOT for CHLs from other states:

If you look in GC Subchapter H Section 411.173

(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun under which a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state ...
...

I think you could make a good argument that the reciprocity agreement or proclamation IS the granting of a license under Subchapter H, since the language is IN this subchapter. The out of state license holder would then have the defense to 30.05.

-Scott

57Coastie wrote:A lawyer (who has a CHL) once suggested to me that perhaps this is not quite as clear as reading the above posts assume. That is, notice is notice, but a particular type of notice is necessary for a CHL holder to be guilty of criminal trespass. Or, no matter how you are given notice that you are not welcome, then you are not welcome, and you may be denied entrance. Criminal trespass comes into play if the notice is not compliant with 30.06.

Here's where I respectfully disagree with your lawyer friend. There are 2 statutes at play here. PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS and PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. 30.05 specifically provides a defense for people excluded on the basis of carrying w/ a CHL. So now you have to get prosecuted under 30.06 which has very specific wording about what constitutes written notice, and a gunbuster isn't it.

Or, if will, nothing in the statutes says that absent notice compliant with 30.06 you are permitted, regardless of the wishes of the business, to carry concealed in the premises.

You haven't been given notice under 30.06 that you ARE NOT permitted, and you have a defense under 30.05 that you were being excluded because of CHL.

In sum, In our discussions of 30.06 we may often omit the element of criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is the issue, not the right to enter, once one receives actual notice, in any form, and it is incorrect to say "the sign is worded wrong, so we have the right to enter."

Criminal trespass is PC30.05, and you have a statutory defense to any notice that excludes on the basis of CHL. 30.06 requires you receive notice in a particular format, this is an element of the offense. Absent the proper notice, you have not committed the offense (Trespass by a CHL Licensee. If there's a sign that says PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING then anyone entering is violating 30.05.

His point would suggest that the broad language used, quite innocently, with respect to 30.06 could result in one being successfully prosecuted for criminal trespass should, as an example, his carrying of a concealed handgun be detected, he is told to get out, and he refuses, on the basis that he had not been given effective 30.06 notice by the noncompliant sign on the door.

Refusing to leave after you have been orally notified to do so is crime whether they have a sign or not. No one here has argued otherwise. I don't think the language in 30.06 is broad. It's quite specific.

Which this unnamed lawyer threw out for me to think about. If he is correct, there is no real difference of opinion here, he would only be criticizing the way the operation of 30.06 is sometimes described.

Well, I think he's wrong and believe that I have provided reasoned arguments why, based on the language of the statutes.

almostfree wrote:She may be talking about if you are an employee of the business. It is my understanding that you can be charged with criminal trespass under 30.05 if you are an employee and you carry against company policy that you have been informed of in writing or verbally (usually by company manual). It is kind of a funny situation though, because I read an attorney general opinion that says you can be charged with criminal trespass under 30.05, but then in the statute itself, it is a defense to prosecution under 30.05 that you are a CHL holder. It was a question on the test when I took my CHL class, and the right answer was that you could be charged with criminal trespass if you had been informed by your employer. It is more likely they would just fire you, but it is possible.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... M#prohibit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From reading the statues, I am still not convinced that an employer doesn't have to post 30.06 in order to prohbit employees from carrying, despite DPS' interpretation to the contrary.

The Attorney General Opinion in the link is dated August 30, 1995 and is from that hack former AG, Dan Morales (but I digress). He may or may not have been right in his 40 page manifesto based on the law at the time, but the CHL laws have been revised in almost every legislative session since. Morales was not a fan of the CHL law when it was proposed and passed.

Most people posting here agree with you that the statute as currently written requires an employer to give you notice under 30.06 before you could be criminally charged for trespass. Per the statute, the notice can be oral notice by someone with the authority over the premises, or written, in which case it must follow the exact specification in the statute.

Don't forget, they can still fire you for ignoring a company policy or other non-30.06 notice. You just won't go to jail.