TexasCHLforum.com

sar wrote:Here's a question. If the hospital is posted with a 30.06 sign, but a CHL gets written authorization to carry from the administration, is that legit?

Yes, the written consent constitutes "effective consent" so it's legal to cross the 30.06 sign. TPC §30.06 requires both 1) a lack of "effective consent" to enter the property';and 2) notice that entry is forbidden, as required by that section.

Chas.

Here is the language:

TPC §30.06 wrote:§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED
HANDGUN.

• (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
  holder:
  • (1) carries a handgun under the authority of
    Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
    without effective consent; and
    (2) received notice that:
  • • (A) entry on the property by a license holder
      with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
      (B) remaining on the property with a concealed
      handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

• (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.

GrillKing wrote:It seems to me all the law says is that it is not a criminal offense for a peace officer to pass a 'no guns' sign. An officer can still be asked to leave for the same reasons anyone else could be: you are too loud or I just don't like you. If they don't leave and are not on official business, they would be tresspassing.

I can't believe a LEO can stay on private property if asked to leave unless they were there for official police business. It's just that it is not criminal for them to pass the sign. It seems that w/o this legislation, passing a 'no guns' sign would be tresspassing for going to lunch, stopping by the dry cleaners or WalMart on the way home, etc. Almost no one has a problem with LEOs and I have to believe most 'no guns' signs are not intended for LEOs.

I'm missing how this is bad....

This is precisely what was argued in favor of the revision to TPC §30.05. It was a stand-alone bill that drew a great deal of criticism (I can't recall the bill number) and the author didn't push it. Instead, the provisions were added to another bill and it passed.

Unfortunately, TPC §30.05(g) is very broad. It makes the entire Section (i.e. all of TPC §30.05) "not app[licable] to" LEO's. It's not limited solely to crossing signs. It does not shield a LEO from TPC §30.05, if the basis is anything other than carrying a handgun. CHL's are also afforded this protection from TPC §30.05. The obvious difference is that a property owner can prohibit CHLs from entering the property by using TPC §30.06, but there is no counterpart for LEO's. So the bottom line is that private property owners cannot prohibit any off-duty LEO from entering his home armed. That's absurd. (Yes, you can lie about why you are excluding them, but this discussion is about the state of the law, not how to circumvent it.)

Note also that the exclusionary language found in TPC §30.05 is different for CHLs and for LEOs. CHLs have a "defense to prosecution" while LEO section reads "does not apply . . ." In truth, there is no distinction since case law holds that there are only "defenses" and "exceptions" and any wording other than "exception" is a defense. Nevertheless, the Legislature at least tried to give CHLs a more difficult task of defending against a TPC §30.05 charge than is faced by a LEO.

Chas.

Here is the language

TPC30.05 wrote:§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

. . .

(g) This section does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
  in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
  weapon was forbidden; and
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
  officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
  state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
  Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
  special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
  official duty while carrying the weapon.

srothstein wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

Charles,

The law requires me to take action to suppress crime in my presence if I am in my jurisdiction. This applies at all times. This is where the 24 hour on duty concept comes from (and why many officers live outside the cities they serve).

As a result of this law, there have been cases where the city has had liability applied to them for either the officer's actions or the workman's comp liability for the officer getting hurt. Probably the best example I know of off-hand for the liability is Off. Smith (IIRC?) in San Antonio a few years back. He was working off-duty for Dillard's and ended up killing a Mexican citizen in an incident on New Year's Day. Dillard's was sued for the use of force and SAPD was required to step in and assume the case and liability (which they won).

I know some departments say their officers are "on duty" 24 hrs a day, but I don't know of any statute that requires this. I also don't know of any statute that requires the individual officer to take enforcement action if a crime is committed in their presence and he officer is not "on the clock." I'm not saying such a statute doesn't exist, just that I've never seen them.

But as for my position on private property, the intent behind the change was to deprive all private property owners of the ability to exclude any armed LEO from their property, even when they are not on official business. This is true whether the officer is in his jurisdiction or not. There is no justification for that.

Chas.

txinvestigator wrote:Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.) Yes, I know the argument that all LEO's are always "on duty," but that's a sham. If they are "on duty" 24 hrs. a day, then their agencies owe them a bunch of unpaid overtime, the city/county has potential liability for all of their actions, worker's comp. benefits are available "always," etc.

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.