TexasCHLforum.com

dicion

Keith B wrote:
Well, no disrespect, but I personally will go with srothstein's view due to his extensive law enforcement and LEO instructor background. I personally trust his opinion/interpretation as the most accurate and what would likely transpire.

That's fine

I have no argument with differences of opinion, as I said, a judge or jury could go somewhere else completely with it

Would I like to see the result of a court case on this? Sure! Would I want to BE the court case on this? Heck no!

However, in my personal opinion, I Would carry at this location.
Concealed is Concealed, Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, all that Mumbo Jumbo

dicion

srothstein wrote:No. you are misreading the law. The term effective notice is specifically defined in the one paragraph (b). Paragraph (e) is how to apply the section of the law, and does not affect the definition carried in paragraph (b).

Note that paragraph (b) says you are given notice when you are given the oral or written communication. Paragraph (c) then defines the communication, but the notice itself is already defined. Paragraph (d) then tells you what grade of offense. It does not affect any of the other paragraphs either.

So, the effective notice definition is the part referred to by paragraph (i) in section 46.035. You receive the effective notice when the sign is properly posted. Then you get charged with violating 46.035 and not 30.06.

The fun part is that if it were a private hospital, you could get charged with both violations for caryring past the same sign.

I respectfully disagree. 2 Parts.

First, regarding your application of (e) to the rest of the statute.
Section (e) pertains to the entirety of 30.06. It specifically states it is an exception to the 'application of this section', eg, everything between the § (section) symbols, eg all of 30.06.
So (b) is excepted if (e) is met. Which means, there is no longer any definition that meets 'effective notice' under that section. The application of the Text as defined in (b) is excepted/no longer construes/no longer applies as 'effective notice'.

Then to 46.035 only referring to the 'definition' of 'effective notice'
I agree that 'effective notice' is defined under (b), however, 46.035 does not say 'effective notice As Defined in 30.06', but rather, 'effective notice Under 30.06'. This means that 30.06 has to apply, on it's standalone, before it can be applied to 46.035. You yourself have said that 30.06 will not apply on it's own, and I have shown that it cannot apply above due to it being excepted, so therefore, since they were not given 'effective notice under 30.06', it does not apply.

Noting the circular logic above, in order for one to affect the other, one has to be true at one point in time for the logic to return true. If A, than B, and If B, than A, will not return true if neither B nor A are ever true.

At least this is my opinion.

How a judge or a jury would see it could be completely different from both of our interpretations

dicion

ELB wrote:Dicion -- I believe you have to read the entire exception in Section 30.06:
(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.
Note that for this exception to apply it has to be government owned or leased AND not listed as a prohibited place under 46.03 or 46.035. Hospitals are listed under 46.035 as prohibited places, as long as they give effective notice. Public libraries, DPS license offices, the Tax Assessor, etc are not listed as prohibited places, so the exception in 30.06 applies to them.

The word 'listed' is not anywhere in that statute. It says you have to be Prohibited from carrying under 46.035. Simply being listed there makes no difference. It is listed, but not prohibited due to 46.035(i) as long as they have not been given effective notice under 30.06.

This is Circular Logic. It's not prohibited under 46.035 as long as you're not given proper notice under 30.06. You can't be given notice under 30.06 on gov't property, unless it's prohibited in 46.035... repeat ad nauseum. Even with circular logic, there is no chance of it being True, if neither of the requirements are ever true. Since 46.035 requires 30.06 to be true, and it is not because of the government exemption, and since 46.035 is false by default due to 46.035(i) the end result is still false.

dicion

srothstein wrote:The correct answer is that the posting is valid. This is one of the very tricky cases in the Penal Code. The hospital is owned by the city, so the 30.06 charge cannot be prosecuted. But, you would be charged with penal code 46.035. Note that the law says that it is illegal to carry in there if the hospital is posted. So, the posting is valid to warn you not to violate that section of the law.

EDIT to the people posting as I type:

DO NOT CARRY. PC 46.035 is a violation on its own.

Negative. You didn't read alllllll the way down to TPC 46.035(i)

TPC 46.035 wrote: (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

you have to be given effective notice as defined under 30.06. 30.06 itself says you cannot be given such notice on govt property. Therefore, it is an invalid sign.

30.06 wrote: (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.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of 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"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

Therefore, you Cannot Apply this section if it's Gov't property

dicion

ELB wrote:A hospital is one of the locations specified in law that may ban CHL carry, as long as the hospital "provides notice" as outlined in 30.06. This appears to be true regardless of whether it is a public or private hospital.

TPC 30.06(e) Says otherwise.
TPC 46.035 says it has to provide effective notice as defined under TPC 30.06.
TPC 30.06(e) says there is an exception to that section for gov't owned & leased property. Eg, Effective notice cannot be given on those properties. Therefore, Carry away!

dicion

mr.72 wrote:plain as day coming in the door, big letters in two languages.

I have to go back there today in about an hour. I figured the hospital was owned by the City of Austin so I assumed the 30.06 sign was invalid.

Reading here: http://www.seton.net/locations/brackenr ... ckenridge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Publicly owned University Medical Center Brackenridge, home of the regional trauma center, was leased by the City of Austin to Seton in October of 1995, bringing Brackenridge under the umbrella of the SETON Healthcare Network in a historic agreement."

So the hospital property is owned by the City and leased by Seton. I presume that means the posting is not valid.

What say ye?

I concur. Govt Property, those 30.06 signs hold no weight. Carry Away.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06

Re: Brackenridge Hospital Austin 30.06