TexasCHLforum.com

Renegade wrote:Besides, it has not not mattered since 1997 since the signs do not apply to CHLs, and just about everyone else would be violating 46.02, which is a more serious charge.

It has always been legal to carry long guns, either in your vehicle or in a public place. It has always been legal to carry a handgun while traveling. It is now legal to carry a concealed handgun in your vehicle.

IMHO, these signs apply to people who do not have a CHL; and as I wrote earlier, whether to prosecute for 30.05 criminal trespass is a judgment call of the responding officer.

We're never going to know until a case goes to appeal.

- Jim

The quoting here is difficult to sort out, so I won't try.

I agree that a "no guns" sign is ambiguous, but in everyday life every normal adult knows that a "no X" sign means that X is prohibited in that location (smoking, skateboarding, pets, etc.).

Now, in order to have the possibiity of criminal trespass, the "actor" (as they like to say in the law these days) must do something that causes the manager of the premises to know that he has a weapon. Then, the manager has to call the police, who have to get there before the actor leaves.

The responding police officer then has to decide whether the actor committed an offense. He may call his superior for advice. He probably is not going to go to the assistant DA for a misdemeanor.

So someone who puts himself in this situation is hoping that (1) he won't be detected, and (3) that if he is, the police will understand the law in same way as he does.

That's all I have to say at this point.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:The majority of Texas Gun Law is based on Case Law, not Statute. Here are just some Case Law that relate to the carrying a handgun on or about your person, ...

May I ask if that list is available in one place? I was not aware of most of these cases.

Renegade wrote:I know when CHL law was enacted, its purpose was to INCREASE lawful carry of handguns by licensed folks. If most folks think recent changes result in a DECREASE in lawful carry of handguns by licensees, then the law needs to be changed.

I don't see how the recent changes in the law would limit what a CHL holder can do. My argument is that the laws that apply to CHL are largely unchanged.

Non-CHL-holders now have more opportunity to carry, and in some cases the older laws that apply to CHL holders do not apply to non-CHL-holders -- such as identifying to law enforcement.

That is a consequence of the way legislation is made, which is not necessarily logical or well thought out.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:

seamusTX wrote:If a property owner says you must wear shoes and a shirt, or you can't bring in a dog or talk on a cell phone, you obligated to comply or be charged with criminal trespass.

That is my point, until the property owner confronts you, you are not in violation (barring any health code I do not know about).

I just don't know how that kind of thing works, legally.

As a practical matter, property owners are going to tell you to leave before calling the police, unless you're acting violently.

Please remember, though, the original question is about a workplace. Employers tell their employees in advance that weapons are prohibited by company policy.

I very much doubt that employers simply tell their employees to read the policy manual these days. They require a signature under a statement that the employee understands the policy. I have to sign such a statement once a year.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:Gun law enforcement is not based on "common sense or custom", is it based on law or case law.

PC §46.02 makes it illegal to carry a handgun except on premises or a vehicle that you control (I'm leaving out the details for simplicity).

PC §46.15 makes 46.02 not applicable in certain situations, such as traveling or having a CHL.

Nowhere in the law is it explicitly legal to touch a handgun at a gun show or in a gun store, or in transit to or from those places.

Renegade wrote:I think it is a stretch to claim why LEOs get CHLs.

I've never paid attention to that part of the law because it doesn't apply to me. I just don't know.

Renegade wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Try this scenario: You are driving while armed. You are stopped and asked for ID. You give the officer your driver license but not your CHL. The officer runs your DL number, comes back, and says, "I notice you have a CHL. Are you armed?"

Now, do you want to argue with the officer on the side of the road that you didn't have to display your CHL because you're carrying under authority of 46.02? I don't.

There is no argument, you are required to show DL/CHL. The law requiring it makes no distinction as to whether the gun is loaded, unloaded, concealed, unconcealed, or whether you are a Peace Officer or not, or even if you are carrying under CHL law or not

I agree, of course.

I don't see how (supposedly) carrying under the authority of 46.02 gets you out of PC §30.06 but not GC §411.205.

I'm not trying to flog this issue to death. I'm concerned that someone might act on this theory and end up in jail.

(I think nearly all firearms regulations are unconstitutional, but I'm going to obey them until they're repealed.)

- Jim

AggieMM wrote:Ah, now I see your point seamusTX, but I have a question. I'm reading 30.05, and the entry with a handgun is an offense, assuming that entry was prohibited? But I'm not prohibited from entering the parking lot, right? So would 30.05 not apply?

As I understand it (and I am still not a lawyer), there are two levels of criminal trespass:

• entering a place that is completely off-limits to the public, like a residence
• entering a place that is normally open to the public, but refusing to follow the conditions of entry

For example, if you bring a dog (other than a service animal) into a place with a "no pets" sign, and they ask you to leave, and you refuse, you can be arrested for criminal trespass.

I think the same principle applies to generic "no guns" signs and non-CHL holders.

A privately owned parking lot can be subject to such restrictions, just ilke a building. For example, many businesses prohibit trailers in their parking lots.

Renegade wrote:I do not believe the 30.05 no guns signs are pre-emptive (kinda like no shirts, no shoes no service are not pre-emptive). This was the problem in 1995-97 before 30.06. Thus 30.06 was created to be pre-emptive.

I don't know what you mean by "pre-emptive."

If a property owner says you must wear shoes and a shirt, or you can't bring in a dog or talk on a cell phone, you obligated to comply or be charged with criminal trespass.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:1) Suppose you are at a gun range/show. You are open carrying your handgun as you move around the range/show. This is illegal (failure to conceal), if you are carrying under CHL law. But you are not carrying under CHL law, even though you have a CHL. Thus no offense is committed.

I'll grant you the range angle, because it has always been legal to carry a handgun openly at the range, or on the way to or from one.

The law does not explictly allow you to possess a handgun at a gun show or in a gun store. It is more a matter of common sense and custom to allow possession at gun shows.

In the LEO examples, the law explicitly gives LEOs privileges that the rest of don't have. LEOs don't get a CHL so that they can carry; they get it so that they don't have to show their LEO ID in some circumstances. Note the underlined text:

GC §411.198. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ALIAS HANDGUN LICENSE.
(a) On written approval of the director, the department may issue to a law enforcement officer an alias license to carry a concealed handgun to be used in supervised activities involving criminal investigations.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 46.035, Penal Code, that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, was the holder of an alias license issued under this section.

That means LEOs who have a CHL can carry in places where ordinary CHL holders cannot (bars, etc.).

Try this scenario: You are driving while armed. You are stopped and asked for ID. You give the officer your driver license but not your CHL. The officer runs your DL number, comes back, and says, "I notice you have a CHL. Are you armed?"

Now, do you want to argue with the officer on the side of the road that you didn't have to display your CHL because you're carrying under authority of 46.02? I don't.

- Jim

Renegade wrote:The question is basically, if you are lawfully carrying a handgun on or about your person, based on authority from multiple portions of the Penal Code and/or Case Law, what is the order of precedence?

I don't think the concept of a CHL holder carrying under authority other than the CHL law is a valid concept.

Such a concept is not explicit in the law, and no case law has been established.

For example, it has always been legal to carry a handgun while traveling. But if you're driving from Houston to Dallas and are asked for ID in Huntsville, I believe you have to display your CHL.

Here's my thinking in more detail: PC 30.05 defines criminal trespass. It exempts CHL holders in these words:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

By implication, everyone except CHLs (and LEOs) is liable to charges of criminal trespass for carrying a weapon past a generic "no guns" sign.

Then PC 30.06 defines criminal trespass by a CHL holder if the appropriate sign is displayed or oral notice is given.

So either you're not a CHL and you're nailed under 30.05, or you are a CHL and you're nailed under 30.06.

Again, IMHO, this state of affairs applies to a rifle in the trunk as well as a concealed handgun on your person.

- Jim

IMHO, a person without a CHL who takes a firearms past a "no guns" sign could be charged with 30.05 criminal trespass.

I don't think there's any loophole for CHL holders. I think that police and DAs are going to continue to interpret the CHL law regardless of the changes to 46.02.

As usual, IANAL.

P.S.: I had typed 47.02 and changed it. Penal Code 46.02 is the unlawful carry law that was changed this year to allow concealed carry in vehicles.

- Jim