New church signs

[WildBill]

a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and (2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a

It seems like anyone who could withhold consent by acting with "apparent authority" of the owner could also grant it. Turn it around...If there was no sign, could the security guard still give you oral notice that carry was prohibited? Yes. So it seems clear that he could grant it.


ETA: But I wouldn't want to be....dah...dah...dahh... The TEST CASE...

I wouldn't trust the oral notification of a security guard or other employee if the location was posted.
If so, I would ask them to remove the sign. If they don't have the authority to do that, I would pass.
I could see that if he were challenged or overruled by a superior, he might have a sudden loss of memory.
Or "I didn't say that. I said if it were up to me he could carry" ... etc.
Do you think the guard would sign a written statement that gives the person the authority to carry past the sign?
I really doubt it.

[Soccerdad1995]

a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and (2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a

It seems like anyone who could withhold consent by acting with "apparent authority" of the owner could also grant it. Turn it around...If there was no sign, could the security guard still give you oral notice that carry was prohibited? Yes. So it seems clear that he could grant it.


ETA: But I wouldn't want to be....dah...dah...dahh... The TEST CASE...

I wouldn't trust the oral notification of a security guard or other employee if the location was posted.
If so, I would ask them to remove the sign. If they don't have the authority to do that, I would pass.
I could see that if he were challenged or overruled by a superior, he might have a sudden loss of memory.
Or "I didn't say that. I said if it were up to me he could carry" ... etc.
Do you think the guard would sign a written statement that gives the person the authority to carry past the sign?
I really doubt it.

Understandable. The same goes the other way, of course. It would be hard to prove effective notice either way absent an audio recording of some type. I'll stop there so as to not run afoul of forum rules.

Speaking solely of the law, I think you can get effective notice to carry in a 30.06 posted location from someone with apparent authority.

[dru]

So what are the locations where its still a class A misdemeanor to carry past a 30.06 sign (outside of someone verbally telling you no carrying)

[rtschl]

So what are the locations where its still a class A misdemeanor to carry past a 30.06 sign (outside of someone verbally telling you no carrying)

If I understood previous discussions correctly... Because the legislature just changed the requirement for them to post 30.06 the following would still be a Class A if you carried past a statutorily correct 30.06 sign: hospital, nursing home, amusement park, church, synagogue or other established place of religious worship and meeting of a governmental entity is held.

[treeman]

There is provision written in the law for giving oral notice that one cannot carry, but as far as I know, there is no provision written in the law for oral notice allowing one to disregard a 30.06 sign. I would be very cautious with this.

[ScottDLS]

There is provision written in the law for giving oral notice that one cannot carry, but as far as I know, there is no provision written in the law for oral notice allowing one to disregard a 30.06 sign. I would be very cautious with this.

The section of the law is as follows:

30.06
(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:

So if you orally received CONSENT, then you wouldn't have committed both elements of the offense even if you received notice via a sign. NOT GUILTY...

[thetexan]

So are we going to sic the mods on the people telling us to turn right on red from the outside lanes?

I loved the jest but it does bring up a very real scenario that I don't think has been tested in trial yet; that is a LTC holder having to defend themselves in any area that has a proper 30.06 posting. Let's be honest, it's a class C in most cases and many people are going to pass right by those signs, however, you are still breaking the law as it is currently written. I can't think of the specific statute but I remember something about unlawful carry while engaging in criminal activity that isn't a class c traffic misdemeanor.

Yes. It's been discussed before if you use deadly force while committing a non-traffic crime (even class C), you lose your automatic presumption of justification for deadly force. First, if I need to use my gun, that's the last thing I'm worrying about. Second, if the DA decides you weren't justified, you're going to get indicted, presumption or not. It's like if you're speeding 1 mile over and somebody jumps in front of you and you hit them, it's going to be a little harder to "beat the rap" for vehicular manslaughter IF you're charged with it.

So I don't advocate that anybody walk past a 30.06, or turn right on red from the outside lane...

Almost...

What you lose is the presumption that your BELIEF that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force was reasonable, a key element of the statute. If you are committing a crime you lose the legally imputed presumption of reasonableness and therefore must defend that belief at trial. The difference is that in the first case you will be acquitted as a matter of law (assuming you are not in violation of any other elements) and in the latter your claim of reasonableness will be challenged and left up to the jury to decide if indeed it was reasonable. Then, if they do not, you might go to prison for any number of years.

tex

[ScottDLS]

So are we going to sic the mods on the people telling us to turn right on red from the outside lanes?

I loved the jest but it does bring up a very real scenario that I don't think has been tested in trial yet; that is a LTC holder having to defend themselves in any area that has a proper 30.06 posting. Let's be honest, it's a class C in most cases and many people are going to pass right by those signs, however, you are still breaking the law as it is currently written. I can't think of the specific statute but I remember something about unlawful carry while engaging in criminal activity that isn't a class c traffic misdemeanor.

Yes. It's been discussed before if you use deadly force while committing a non-traffic crime (even class C), you lose your automatic presumption of justification for deadly force. First, if I need to use my gun, that's the last thing I'm worrying about. Second, if the DA decides you weren't justified, you're going to get indicted, presumption or not. It's like if you're speeding 1 mile over and somebody jumps in front of you and you hit them, it's going to be a little harder to "beat the rap" for vehicular manslaughter IF you're charged with it.

So I don't advocate that anybody walk past a 30.06, or turn right on red from the outside lane...

Almost...

What you lose is the presumption that your BELIEF that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other's use or attempted use of deadly force was reasonable, a key element of the statute. If you are committing a crime you lose the legally imputed presumption of reasonableness and therefore must defend that belief at trial. The difference is that in the first case you will be acquitted as a matter of law (assuming you are not in violation of any other elements) and in the latter your claim of reasonableness will be challenged and left up to the jury to decide if indeed it was reasonable. Then, if they do not, you might go to prison for any number of years.

tex

Technically true, but if the prosecutor is out to indict you, you're going to get indicted, 30.06 or no. If you find yourself in a position where you need to pull the trigger, you really ought to pull it (even if you're in a school that gets 51% of its revenue from on-premises alcohol sales). When being careless about violating a class c misdemeanor, like 30.06 or speeding, one is generally balancing the penalty against the circumscribed conduct. The penalty is in line with what society feels the damage caused by the crime is. That's why every case is not capital. Intentionally, shooting someone is aggravated assault at a minimum, a felony. So you're much better off putting your concern into whether shooting is right, than scrutinizing the mishmash of signs on a (perhaps) posted location.

The reason the presumption is limited to those not committing a crime, is to make it harder for bad actors to plead self defense when they did something that caused the situation to develop. (e.g. disorderly conduct, fighting, stealing, then the proprietor physically restrained you, then you shot him...). If you shoot someone, the likelihood of being prosecuted is not likely going to be increased by something unrelated to the situation that caused the shooting. Technically, if I shoot someone breaking into my house while I'm watering my lawn on the wrong day (class c in my town) I lose the presumption that my belief was reasonable. Now if it was the City Code inspector, I'd deserve it, but if it was an ISIS terrorist with a SIG MCX...I'm going to be a little less worried if my watering timer was set correctly.







\
\

[thetexan]

Agreed.

I would defend myself under any circumstance and take my chances. Unrelated class c crimes probably won't sway the jury much. However violating .06/.07 notification goes to the very essence of the issue. In that case the crime itself is directly related to the matter at trial, that is, how can a self defensive shooting take place if you, by law, can not be there with a gun. The shooting would not have been necessary because you have no legal right to be there (another element, by the way) and should not have been there in the first place. In other words, had you followed the law and not been there you would not have needed to defend yourself. Therefore your illegal presence with a gun was an integral ingredient to the circumstance that resulted in the illegal use of deadly force even though it was in self defense. Illegal because you fail to meet the requirements of 9.31, .32.

That makes .06/.07 violations particularly dangerous as it relates to succeptibility to conviction compared to having marajuana in your pocket.

How can you argue that you needed to defend yourself resulting in the death of another when you, as a matter of law, we're prohibited, by law, from being there in the first place? How can you NEED to defend yourself at a location you are prohibited from being at (because you have a gun) and should not have been at? That's what the prosecutor will demand you explain. And it's a very good question. No one made you go into that mall and in fact INSISTED that you do not by legally notifying you by .06/.07 that you were PROHIBITED from doing so, in effect, placing yourself in harms way.

Of course all of this simply triggers whether or not the presumption of reasonableness will be imputed to you.

In my opinion, violating a .06/.07 prohibition is a very dangerous proposition indeed.

tex