Search found 6 matches
Return to “State Employee says no 30.06 needed???”
- Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:48 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
Good post! What happened to your unlucky friend?
- Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:22 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
Paging Mr. Cotton: Please pick up the white courtesy phone... 
- Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:18 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
cop-out...
And not what the law says constitutes notification.
Of course, you can be arrested for any durn thing.
And not what the law says constitutes notification.
Of course, you can be arrested for any durn thing.
- Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:36 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
Ohhh -- That's bad!chabouk wrote: Police question: "So, did you see the big red 'NO GUNS' signs on the doors?"
Wrong answer: "Yeah, but they don't apply to me."
Right answer: "I want to talk to my lawyer before answering any questions."
- Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:10 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
57Coastie -- If I understand your point, you are saying...
1) a place is not properly 30.06 posted
2) a CHL holder enters
3) It is detected that he is carrying, he is told to leave by someone in power
4) He refuses based on improper signage
5) He is now guilty of criminal trespass
If that's your argument, I would tend to agree. He is not guilty because of the signage, but because he refused to leave when asked.
PC 30.05(a)(2) "received notice to depart but failed to do so." A Class A or B misdemeanor
Also, PC 30.06 (a)(2)(B) "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart" A Class A misdemeanor.
(Note: it seems there are some words missing between "handgun" and "was"???)
1) a place is not properly 30.06 posted
2) a CHL holder enters
3) It is detected that he is carrying, he is told to leave by someone in power
4) He refuses based on improper signage
5) He is now guilty of criminal trespass
If that's your argument, I would tend to agree. He is not guilty because of the signage, but because he refused to leave when asked.
PC 30.05(a)(2) "received notice to depart but failed to do so." A Class A or B misdemeanor
Also, PC 30.06 (a)(2)(B) "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart" A Class A misdemeanor.
(Note: it seems there are some words missing between "handgun" and "was"???)
- Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:13 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
- Replies: 130
- Views: 20660
Re: State Employee says no 30.06 needed???
How about adding that the sign must be displayed at all public entrances to the protected area?jimlongley wrote:And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.PUCKER wrote:Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.
Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.
