TexasCHLforum.com

VrRotate wrote:The memo forced on me states that an employer has the right to ban handguns on their property for employees by any means they feel necessary. This means that it can be stated in their employment paperwork, verbally or even a ghostbusters sign. Example: I walk into a office building and it has a sign that says "no guns" I am good since I am just a regular chl holder visiting; however if I am employed by the owner of that building then I am in the wrong and can be charged for trespassing/unlawful carry.

This is incorrect, at least to the extent you are talking about written notification via policy manual or sign. To be prosecuted under any criminal statute, all elements of the crime must be present. To prosecute under TPC §30.06, you must be given effective notice either verbally or in writing. Verbal notice does not require any special verbiage; anything that gets the "no guns" message across is sufficient.

If effective notice is to be given in writing, such as in an employer policy manual, then the exact language required by TPC §30.06 must be used. If the written notice is in the form of a sign, then the size and color requirements must also be met. So generic "no guns" signs will not be sufficient to prosecute an employee or non-employee. There is a question on this issue on the CHL exam and, although factually correct as worded, it is grossly misleading both as to an employer's ability to terminate an employee, and as to potential prosecution. This question was written by a certain infamous lawyer at DPS and it reflects what she wishes the law allows, not what it requires.

Chas.

WildBill wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:We are, perhaps, in the wrong part of this forum to have this branch of the discussion.

This thread deals with valid 30.06 postings, one specific arrest and it's outcome.

OldTxCop wrote:Am I missing something here? An employer doesn't have to give notice per 30.06. If they have it as part of their company policies, that serves as notice, especially if she had to sign a statement that she read, received and agrees to abide by the policies. Many companies policies also state that violating their policies can lead to arrest. (i.e. drugs, weapons, etc...)

She could have been given verbal notice by a supervisor and that would also be valid notice...
Or, am I missing something?

The only way to prosecute a CHL for trespass is by using TPC §30.06. §30.06 requires the use of specific language to do so, if notice is given in writing. If the writing is a sign, then it must not only use the statutorily-required language, it must also meet the physical requirements of §30.06.

If she was given verbal notice of a "go guns" policy, then she can be prosecuted under §30.06, as verbal notice does not require any specific language. As yet, I don't believe anyone knows what notice she received.

Chas.