TexasCHLforum.com

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(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.
(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.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

jmaynard wrote:

CWOOD wrote:

TxSigp229 wrote:Ok, I know that the 30.06 signs must be posted at the entrance of buildings for them to be legit.

What if they're only posted in the staff break room on the staff bulletin board? - No, I don't work there but my g/f does.

I know the sign is there. Should I ignore it or what since its not properly posted? There are no 30.06 signs at either of the two entrances to the business.

First of all, you are slightly mistaken about the location of the posting of the sign. It DOES NOT have to be at the entrance. It has to be posted in a "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also remember that 30.06 notification doesn not have to be done with a sign. It can be done orally, with no specific wording, it can be done in writing with a card or other document. This must have the specific wording but Spanish is not required. Notification can also be done with the sign with block letters 1" tall, contrasting colors, specific wording in English and Spanish and a location as noted above.

The 30.06 statute refers to coming into a location after you receive notice OR after having received notice that you failed to depart immediately. Both are violations.

From your comments, it would appear that you have already received notice. You already know about the sign and its location. It is not required that you be notified on each and every visit. If this is the case, you cannot now enter there while armed. This would be similar to someone going to a shopping mall and seeing a 30.06 sign at one entrance and then later finding and going through another entance that did not have the sign and then claiming that they did not receive proper notice. It that case they DID receive notice but tried to circumvent the restriction.

In summary, regrdless of the location of the sign, if you have already seen the sign, you cannot carry without being in violation. If the sign is not posted at the entrance, and you have not seen it before, but you later go to the lounge where it IS posted and you see it, you have not been in violation until you do see it and then fail to leave immediately. Ignoe it at your peril.

I hope this helps clarify the matter for your. Good Luck

You are mistaken here. Posting in legal terms is required to be charged with unlawful carry under 30.06. Failure to leave after being asked or notified is trespass and not a violation of 30.06 and much different in penalty and effect. SIgns in 30.06 must be visible upon entering an facility. If the break room wall is clearly visible then it is properly posted. If not, they have not notified you. They can trespass you if they learn you have a weapon, but they must provide you an opportunity to leave and cannot hold you, which would constitute false arrest. There are a lot of factors going on here, leas of which is due process, another guanrantee, and much more defined process, in our Constitution.

That being said, why go somewhere that you are not welcome. Move on and or try to educate the owners.

Please please reread the above 30.06 because you are mistaken. Pay special attention to what kind of notice is acceptable, where the sign must be (nothing about it being visible upon entering) and entering past a legal sign or staying after receiving legal notice are both violations of TPC 30.06.

Hope this clarifies any confusion for you.

Everything I left included in my post. The assumption, etc.

Like I said, on a personal level I agree with you but in the application of the statute (and it being ambiguous) we must rely on case law. And case law is alway a flip of the coin!

jmra wrote:

CWOOD wrote:

TxSigp229 wrote:If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted.

Not saying I dont agree with you BUT (devil's advocate) what binding case law do you have to support that statement? I ask that only becuase since the Legislature left it "open" we must rely on the application of the statute in case law and to my knowledge there has been no significant ruling. There are also respected advocates of gun rights (Charles for one if I am not mistakem) who feel the wrong challenge at the wrong time could be disastrous for us.