TexasCHLforum.com

locke_n_load wrote:

CJD wrote:

Abraham wrote:CJD,

You posted: "Any place off limits in 46.03 or 46.035 can post 30.06"

What does that mean?

Please elaborate for us that aren't up on this particular.

Thanks!

Texas Penal Code 30.06 says "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."

Places that are off limits in those sections:
46.03:
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the court;
(4) on the premises of a racetrack;
(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or
(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of which is designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a place of execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a day that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the designated premises and the person received notice that:
(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with a weapon listed under this subsection was prohibited; or
(B) possessing a weapon listed under this subsection within 1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.

46.035:
(b)
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a meeting of a governmental entity is held and if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.
(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.


So any places listed in these 2 sections may post 30.06 regardless of whether or not they are owned or leased by a governmental entity.

I disagree with you here CJD. Hospitals are only off-limits if they are posted per 30.06. They are not automatically banned under 46.03 or 46.035, and city/county property postings are unenforceable. Especially after January 1st - you can tell them about the error of their sign, give them 3 days, then inform the AG and get em fined if they keep it up.

Abraham wrote:CJD,

You posted: "Any place off limits in 46.03 or 46.035 can post 30.06"

What does that mean?

Please elaborate for us that aren't up on this particular.

Thanks!

Jaguar wrote:I have a question and please excuse me if this was answered elsewhere. Hospitals are statutorily off limits due to PC §46.035(b)(4), if they post a 30.06 sign per subsection (i).

Does this mean a county hospital can legally post a 30.06 sign even though it is owned by a government entity?

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote:I already got my local school district to remove all 19 of their illegal signs!

Was this since September 1st, or prior to?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The governmental agency will still be responsible since it owns the property. For example, all exits to public buildings must remain unlocked from the inside so people can exit in case of an emergency. If a building owner rents or leased the property to someone and that person/entity put a chain on exit doors, the building owner is still liable (along with the renter/lessee).

A person can "do" an act either directly, or by ratifying the acts of another. That ratification can be by an act or failure to act.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

Chas, could this wording of SB273 still make the bill apply to notice under 30.07:

A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder
carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is
prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place
owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders
are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other
place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

Since it says "any sign referring to a chl", and that a license holder carrying a "handgun" (note: does not specify concealed), etc.

Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

Sorry to be slow responding, but I just saw this post. This fact pattern is a lawyer's dream come true! There are so many things that can be argued on both sides of the issue everyone will make money on this fight.

Seriously, it is doubtful that the language you quoted will make SB273 apply to open-carry. Playing devil's advocate, there are at least two factors that weight toward applying the Bill's provisions only to concealed-carry and TPC §30.06. First, the Bill's caption expressly states that it deals with concealed-carry on property owned or leased by a governmental entity. (A bill's caption does not "establish" legislative intent, but it is evidence.) Another factor is the timing of the passage of SB273 and HB910 (open-carry). SB273 passed on May 23rd, six days before HB910 passed on May 29th. The argument would be that the Legislature could not have intended SB273 to apply to open-carry when open-carry was not legal at the time the Legislature passed SB273. Yes, everyone know HB910 has been filed, but that doesn't change the facts.

If unenforceable 30.07 signs are a problem, which may or may not be the case, then it will have to be addressed in 2017.

Chas.

CJD wrote:Also, I am wondering about signs posted at gun shows. SB273 only applies to signs posted by "a state agency or a political subdivision of the state." What if the sign is posted by an employee of the gun show, or some other non-state employee. Does SB273 then not apply?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

Sec.411.209.WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06,

Since SB 273 specifically references 30.06, does that leave a loophole for government offices to improperly post 30.07 signs? Or will it apply equally to both?

It's not really a loophole because §30.07 was/is not in existence so SB273 couldn't address it. SB273 will not apply to §30.07 signs.

Chas.

A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder
carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is
prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place
owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders
are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other
place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.