TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:Scott -- better re-read 30.06. There is no mention of premises, it's "property".

... 1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;...

jimlongley wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.

And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

nightmare wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Ameer wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.

Edit: unless they have a CHL...then it's a DEFENSE under 30.05.

If the weapon is a concealed handgun and they have a CHL that's a 30.05 defense but NOT a 30.06 defense. Having a CHL is no defense for having a shotgun or other weapon the property owner prohibits.

Looking back to the OP, that looks like effective notice for both 30.05 and 30.06 on the sign.

[ Image ]

Ameer wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.