ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:29 am
Government owned hospitals can post enforceable 30.06/7 signs because carry under (authority of) LTC in hospitals is prohibited in PC 46.035, if they post a 30.0x sign.
Not quite. LTC carry in hospitals is prohibited by TCP 46.035 if they give effective notice. There's nothing there about posting a sign. There is no effective notice since TCP 30.06(e)/30.07(e) makes TPC 30.06(b)/30.07(b) (which defines notice) not apply if the property is owned or leased by a government entity. Since there's no notice given, carry is not prohibited under 46.035, so 30.06(e)/30.07(e).
Unfortunately for us, the above is not true....
(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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:29 am
Government owned hospitals can post enforceable 30.06/7 signs because carry under (authority of) LTC in hospitals is prohibited in PC 46.035, if they post a 30.0x sign.
Not quite. LTC carry in hospitals is prohibited by TCP 46.035 if they give effective notice. There's nothing there about posting a sign. There is no effective notice since TCP 30.06(e)/30.07(e) makes TPC 30.06(b)/30.07(b) (which defines notice) not apply if the property is owned or leased by a government entity. Since there's no notice given, carry is not prohibited under 46.035, so 30.06(e)/30.07(e).
Unfortunately for us, the above is not true....
(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.
Not prohibited if there's no effective notice given. Can't give effective notice there. Ded.
ScottDLS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 14, 2018 10:29 am
Government owned hospitals can post enforceable 30.06/7 signs because carry under (authority of) LTC in hospitals is prohibited in PC 46.035, if they post a 30.0x sign.
Not quite. LTC carry in hospitals is prohibited by TCP 46.035 if they give effective notice. There's nothing there about posting a sign. There is no effective notice since TCP 30.06(e)/30.07(e) makes TPC 30.06(b)/30.07(b) (which defines notice) not apply if the property is owned or leased by a government entity. Since there's no notice given, carry is not prohibited under 46.035, so 30.06(e)/30.07(e).
Unfortunately for us, the above is not true....
(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.
Not prohibited if there's no effective notice given. Can't give effective notice there. Ded.
???
46.035
(b) 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
or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder’s person:
...
(4)on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing facility licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing facility administration, as appropriate;
...
(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 or 30.07.
30.06
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 concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.
...
3) “Written communication” means:
...
(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.
...
(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.
Here's how it works. You go to a government owned hospital...you see a properly posted, compliant 30.06/7 sign. You have received notice under 30.06/7 as required by 46.035(i) for 46.035(b) to be effective. You have now committed a class A misdemeanor under 46.035b AND a class C under 30.06. I don't see why you say you can't get notice via a sign on government property IF THAT PROPERTY IS ALSO PROHIBITED IN 46.035, which a hospital IS. It says so right in 30.06(e) as I quoted above.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
One of my doctor offices is in a medical building which was posted 30.06 until a few years ago when the 30.06 sign was removed. So I carried concealed in that office and building ever since. However, when I went there for an appointment in May, the office had posted 30.06, 30.07, and 30.05. None of the other offices in the building are posted and the building is still not.
So, at the end of my time, I gave the nurse practitioner the "no guns = no money" card and pointed out why banning LTC makes the office less safe.
A few days later I got a message from the nurse which said that "Texas law prohibits concealed carry in medical facilities. Medical facilities are required to post this at the entrance of the facility. The entrance to the medical facility has never posted it (is a violation)."
As we know, the statement that Texas law prohibits carry in medical facilities and they must be posted is wrong. Entry by LTC is ok in a hospital, medical facility, or any other private premises...unless they properly post 30.06/07 to keep LTC off premises. (On hospitals, see ScottLDS on penal code 46.035(i) above.)
The office management is confused. Medical facilities and hospitals are open to LTC unless posted. And the building has been posted in the past.
Bottom line is if they don't post then LTC is ok.
I'm thinking on the best way to correct their understanding...or not even bother since it seems they are going to keep the 30.06 and 3.07 signs no matter what.
austin-tatious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:58 pm
One of my doctor offices is in a medical building which was posted 30.06 until a few years ago when the 30.06 sign was removed. So I carried concealed in that office and building ever since. However, when I went there for an appointment in May, the office had posted 30.06, 30.07, and 30.05. None of the other offices in the building are posted and the building is still not.
So, at the end of my time, I gave the nurse practitioner the "no guns = no money" card and pointed out why banning LTC makes the office less safe.
A few days later I got a message from the nurse which said that "Texas law prohibits concealed carry in medical facilities. Medical facilities are required to post this at the entrance of the facility. The entrance to the medical facility has never posted it (is a violation)."
As we know, the statement that Texas law prohibits carry in medical facilities and they must be posted is wrong. Entry by LTC is ok in a hospital, medical facility, or any other private premises...unless they properly post 30.06/07 to keep LTC off premises. (On hospitals, see ScottLDS on penal code 46.035(i) above.)
The office management is confused. Medical facilities and hospitals are open to LTC unless posted. And the building has been posted in the past.
Bottom line is if they don't post then LTC is ok.
I'm thinking on the best way to correct their understanding...or not even bother since it seems they are going to keep the 30.06 and 3.07 signs no matter what.
If you look up 46.03 section 11 you will see that the wording has changed, it no longer denotes that it must be posted.
The American Medical Association is very anti-gun. Many doctors and medical facilities follow their recommendations to the T.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
KLB wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:09 pm
In my experience, virtually any healthcare or medical related facility will be posted. Doctors have to have enough individual variety that this isn't a coincidence. There must be some mandate somewhere.
Does anyone know where?
My PCP knows and encourages me to carry in his office. My dentist knows and hasn't said anything. My chiropractor wants me to teach a LTC class for him and his family. Never came up at the eye doctor other than me asking about my depth perception for shooting and playing pool when we discussed me getting Lasik. Eye doctor knows I'm an avid shooter, but never asked about carry.
With any of these docs, I'd have searched for an alternative if they had any issues with my choice of keeping or carrying a firearm.
I've often carried openly when visiting my primary care physician in Austin. Also when seeing my dentist. When I see my cardiologist this month I will be carrying concealed as the building is posted 30.07. We usually spend the first 15 minutes talking guns and self defense.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
Safety Ministry Director, First Baptist Church Elgin
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
austin-tatious wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:58 pm
One of my doctor offices is in a medical building which was posted 30.06 until a few years ago when the 30.06 sign was removed. So I carried concealed in that office and building ever since. However, when I went there for an appointment in May, the office had posted 30.06, 30.07, and 30.05. None of the other offices in the building are posted and the building is still not.
So, at the end of my time, I gave the nurse practitioner the "no guns = no money" card and pointed out why banning LTC makes the office less safe.
A few days later I got a message from the nurse which said that "Texas law prohibits concealed carry in medical facilities. Medical facilities are required to post this at the entrance of the facility. The entrance to the medical facility has never posted it (is a violation)."
As we know, the statement that Texas law prohibits carry in medical facilities and they must be posted is wrong. Entry by LTC is ok in a hospital, medical facility, or any other private premises...unless they properly post 30.06/07 to keep LTC off premises. (On hospitals, see ScottLDS on penal code 46.035(i) above.)
The office management is confused. Medical facilities and hospitals are open to LTC unless posted. And the building has been posted in the past.
Bottom line is if they don't post then LTC is ok.
I'm thinking on the best way to correct their understanding...or not even bother since it seems they are going to keep the 30.06 and 3.07 signs no matter what.
If you look up 46.03 section 11 you will see that the wording has changed, it no longer denotes that it must be posted.
Now I'm confused. Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER, (b)(i) on page 98 says "Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07." Subsection (b)(4) is the same as 46.03 subsection 11. So what is it? Can someone please clarify this for me.
This caveat is in italics right above Section 46.035 in the 2021-2022 edition of the handbook:
Without reference to the amendment of this section, this section was repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 26(10), eff. September 1, 2021.
For future updates, I would propose the DPS just omits anything that has been deleted/rescinded to avoid confusion like this since the handbook usually isn't released until well after the September 1st changes take effect. Alternatively, if there's anything that takes effect after the handbooks release, highlight those areas with a bolder caveat.
Mike S wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:57 am
I believe TPC 46.035 no longer exists.
This caveat is in italics right above Section 46.035 in the 2021-2022 edition of the handbook:
Without reference to the amendment of this section, this section was repealed by Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 809 (H.B. 1927), Sec. 26(10), eff. September 1, 2021.
For future updates, I would propose the DPS just omits anything that has been deleted/rescinded to avoid confusion like this since the handbook usually isn't released until well after the September 1st changes take effect. Alternatively, if there's anything that takes effect after the handbooks release, highlight those areas with a bolder caveat.
This is one of the problems with the way our laws get passed. If two bills are passed, and one repeals the section while the other amends it, there is a legal question of whether it exists or not. It gets more confusing based on timing. If the bill repealing it was passed, then the amendment would not make any sense and one of the principles that law uses is that the legislature cannot pass a law that makes no sense (well, legal sense - they pass a lot of laws with no common sense). This is also how we get two different versions of a section of law.
It will all get cleaned up in the administrative bills in the next session. But it is confusing until then.
