TexasCHLforum.com

PATHFINDER wrote:I guess I must have missed some obscure detail regarding private premises rights/prerogatives complimented by the posting of 30.06 signeage - but , isn't the core of the 30.06 constructive notice requirement based upon the CONCEALMENT of a firearm on private premises ?

An openly DISPLAYED firearm carried beyond the 30.06 sign due either to intentional disregard, or ignorance- WHEN OBSERVED by the private premises custodial authority/management will result in either notice to immediately depart the premises, or a phone call requesting a law enforcement response to deal with the incident.

If the openly displayed firearm is not immediately observed by the custodial authority , reasonable grounds exist for a presumption of CONCEALMENT at some point between actual entry onto the premises and discovery. In either case - observation at the entrance, or subsequent discovery- notice will eventually be given to leave the premises.

So exactly what accounts for the great confusion over existing 30.06 signeage intended to address CONCEALMENT and display ?

Seems to me to be no more complicated than - does a posted "POSITIVELY NO ENTRY PASSED THIS POINT" sign apply to vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic ?

Receiving notice is the posting of a compliant 30.06 sign, regardless of the words on the sign. Clause 1 just says "carries a handgun" with no regard to that handgun being concealed. So a 30.06 effectively prohibits entry of an armed license holder even after the proposed legislation, even if the handgun is plainly visible.

You'll note the bit about "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" in clause one, too. TPC 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of that subchapter. Someone carrying under the authority of an LEO commission (eg an on or off duty police officer) or someone carrying under the authority of exclusion of applicability of TPC 46.02 (eg, someone who is traveling) is not subject to the notice of a 30.06-compliant sign.

Though I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of one of the board's lawyers on my amateur analysis of the above.

steveincowtown wrote:Could any of the folks here who are of the mindset that "signs will be everywhere" if we get Open Carry point to where this has happened in any of the states which have OC or just recently got OC?

I lived in VA for many years and never once was asked to leave a place or encountered a sign that even implied "no OC." There was a bar that required that you put you gun in a locker before entering, but only if you were going to ride the mechanical bull.....yes really.

C-dub wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I figured it would have to be changed. I have not read the bill introduced.

Aggie_engr wrote:I understand there are currently other authorities to carry a handgun under besides being licensed (none of which applies to chl ). If unlicensed open carry passes, and the average joe can now openly carry his handgun wo a license, the State of Texas will not pass such a bill that would deny businesses the right to ban said handguns from the property/establishment. The sign to bar unlicensed open carry may not be 30.06, but could very well take the form of a gunbuster or plain no guns sign such as in other states that currently allow unlicensed open carry.

jordanmills wrote:Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

This statement does not hold water. Do you mean signs as in "any signs" or only "legal 30.06 signs?" I agree, 30.06 will no longer apply but you can expect avenues in some form or fashion that will allow private businesses to ban us regular folk from carrying handguns. I'm no talking about LEO, special permission, or super secret squirrel provisions either.

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:I've read it. Again, read the bit in 30.06 about "under the authority of". And read my post again while you're at it.

So you're saying that the currently proposed bill does not include open as well as concealed carry under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code in the 30.06 wording?

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

(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.

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

Says who? Name one state that doesn't have a clause allowing businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment? Thesr signs, whether 30.06 or not will always apply.

Aggie_engr wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Grog wrote:Put a property who wants to ban open carry under a different rule, that way they have to buy two signs if they really want to ban all guns

This has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum. According to Charles, who should know if anyone does, a two sign ordinance would never pass. If anything, the legislature would lump both CHL and OC together in the same signage. So 30.06 would cover both and correct signage may show up more often. There are places now that have gunbuster signs or other sorts of no-gun signs that we can walk right past because of 30.06. If OC passes and 30.06 gets amended to include OC, you can bet that those places will put up the proper sign the minute they see someone OC in their establishment. Right now they live in blissful ignorance.

This is exactly how the bill has been introduced, OC and CC all lumped into 30.06. The stage is set...

Beiruty wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Here it is: HB 2756 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm

Good luck! I would love to have an option to open carry while travelling, hiking, hunting, etc....

Well you already can while traveling and hiking.

Yep, I can even when hunting, I can carry open. However, say when I leave the hunting ground and drive for lunch in down town of a small town, I have to conceal or risk being arrested and beat the rap. If with CHL we can have open carry as option, you would not worry. Also, new CHLer would not have to worry about printing or concealment issues.

Beiruty wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Here it is: HB 2756 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm

Good luck! I would love to have an option to open carry while travelling, hiking, hunting, etc....