30. 06 Signe at the wor place!

[C-dub]

My work place is a city yard!! Street , water works for utility repairs water & sewer, streets,,
And is it ok to keep replying back an forth on a topic ?? Like I'm doing ! Are do we have to private message back an forth!

Either way is fine. I just type slow and there were two more replies that answered parts of what I answered while I was typing.

[Greekguydave]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Le ... lation.htm
This is new legislation that started sep 1st 2011
Senate bill 321

That applies to employees only. It explicitly does not protect customers, visitors, tenants, employees of tenants, etc.

Correct. He wanted to know if it was ok for him, as an employee to carry in his car.

[Phoenix6410]

30.06 is for concealed carry only, right? So couldn't MPA be applied since it is being left in a vehicle?

[Phoenix6410]

Private property owners CAN post parking lots. Amusement parks do it all the time. Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

[The Annoyed Man]

Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Now,regarding a police stop, you are still required to display your CHL license (though there is no penalty if you don't) even though you're carrying under MPA. Why? Because the law that states you have to display says you have to do that if you are licensed, and armed. It does NOT say if you're carrying under its authority. That is what causes many to claim that CHL "trumps" MPA -- it doesn't.

By the way. If you search the archives you'll find that both Charles and srothstein agree with these opinions.

(and I've convinced Keith B of this twice now... )

Oh I believe you. It just runs counter to previously established "board opinion." But this does beg the question..... If you are carrying under under authority of MPA while driving your car—even though you have a CHL—then how can the 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance apply to you, since it has no force over MPA? ........as in, "yes, I drove past the sign with my gun in my possession, because while I'm driving, MPA supersedes CHL." Not trying to argue, but doesn't that seem like a logical inconsistency to you?

[JT69]

That makes since!!! But u sure wouldn't won't to go up and ask if that is their intentions lol! But sure would like to!! I have to many years in to threaten my job!!!

[sjfcontrol]

Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Now,regarding a police stop, you are still required to display your CHL license (though there is no penalty if you don't) even though you're carrying under MPA. Why? Because the law that states you have to display says you have to do that if you are licensed, and armed. It does NOT say if you're carrying under its authority. That is what causes many to claim that CHL "trumps" MPA -- it doesn't.

By the way. If you search the archives you'll find that both Charles and srothstein agree with these opinions.

(and I've convinced Keith B of this twice now... )

Oh I believe you. It just runs counter to previously established "board opinion." But this does beg the question..... If you are carrying under under authority of MPA while driving your car—even though you have a CHL—then how can the 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance apply to you, since it has no force over MPA? ........as in, "yes, I drove past the sign with my gun in my possession, because while I'm driving, MPA supersedes CHL." Not trying to argue, but doesn't that seem like a logical inconsistency to you?

It doesn't apply to you, no inconsistency there. It does apply if you're not driving (or out of your car).

by the way. I should note there is no case law regarding any of this. I am not a lawyer... yada, yada, yada...

[Skiprr]

My work place is a city yard!! Street , water works for utility repairs water & sewer, streets,,
And is it ok to keep replying back an forth on a topic ?? Like I'm doing ! Are do we have to private message back an forth!

Do I understand correctly that your workplace is owned by a county or municipal government?

[The Annoyed Man]

Now, that being said, what about MPA? Well, the current thinking is that you're not carrying under your CHL while driving, the CHL exception isn't needed since carrying in you car is not otherwise illegal. So you CAN drive past a 30.06 sign protecting a parking lot, but you cannot then step out of the car with your gun. At that point MPA no longer applies, and the 30.06 sign comes into effect.

Interesting, the last conversation I was involved in regarding CHL and MPA the consensus was that if you have a CHL, MPA does not apply to you. Ever. And that if you are stopped by police while carrying in your vehicle, they are not going to accept "I was carrying under MPA" if you have a CHL.

So you're saying that this is not the case?

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Now,regarding a police stop, you are still required to display your CHL license (though there is no penalty if you don't) even though you're carrying under MPA. Why? Because the law that states you have to display says you have to do that if you are licensed, and armed. It does NOT say if you're carrying under its authority. That is what causes many to claim that CHL "trumps" MPA -- it doesn't.

By the way. If you search the archives you'll find that both Charles and srothstein agree with these opinions.

(and I've convinced Keith B of this twice now... )

Oh I believe you. It just runs counter to previously established "board opinion." But this does beg the question..... If you are carrying under under authority of MPA while driving your car—even though you have a CHL—then how can the 30.06 sign at the parking lot entrance apply to you, since it has no force over MPA? ........as in, "yes, I drove past the sign with my gun in my possession, because while I'm driving, MPA supersedes CHL." Not trying to argue, but doesn't that seem like a logical inconsistency to you?

It doesn't apply to you, no inconsistency there. It does apply if you're not driving (or out of your car).

by the way. I should note there is no case law regarding any of this. I am not a lawyer... yada, yada, yada...

OK, that is consistent then. I always assumed that we were talking about driving into a parking lot which was posted at the entrance.

[ClarkLZeuss]

You know, this whole issue would be null and void if the Texas Legislature would pass common sense gun laws. Such as:

A posting of 30.06 also requires the posting of security guards and metal detectors, 24/7. (I doubt many companies would want to shell out the cash for that).

Furthermore, any business which disarms citizens via 30.06 shall be held criminally and civilly liable for any violence that affects anyone who was there and disarmed.

ANY improper signage related to firearms shall be a criminal offense, and with some kind of hotline that anonymous tipsters can report violations to.



Seriously though, why does the 2nd Ammendment have to be covered in so much confusing junk? Why do we have to do so many mental gymnastics to make sure we are exercising our right in a legal way? Why this one God-given right and not all the others referred to in the Bill of Rights?

[stealthfightrf17]

The bill amends Section 411.203 of the Government Code (which addresses the rights of employers to prohibit employees from carrying on the premises of the business) to incorporate the definition of “premises” provided in Penal Code Section 46.035(f)(3)).
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/do ... /SB321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Parking lot bill assinged the defenition as premises, parking lots can not be covered by a 30.06 if you are an employee.
Senate Bill 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions.

[srothstein]

TAM,

My opinion on the issue of CHL, 30.06, and MPA is that we generally over complicate things by not looking at them in the right order. Under the MPA, it is not against the law to have a gun in your car (generally, with the known limitations, etc.). So if the gun is in the car, you are carrying without breaking the law. The CHL is an exception to the application of the law. So, it can only apply when you are otherwise breaking the law. It does apply the minute you get out of your car though.

30.06 applies to any property anywhere that is posted, but only when you are carrying under the exception to the law granted by your CHL. So, a private property owner can post a parking lot right at the entrance to it. It would be illegal to walk past the sign. But if you are in your car, you are not breaking the law so you are not carrying under your CHL's authority. So it is not illegal for a CHL to drive into a posted parking lot with a gun. But he has received the notice, so he would be breaking the law if he got out of the car with the gun while anywhere on the property, including in the parking lot.

In effect, in my opinion, posting the lot pretty much means there is no need to post the building itself if the lot is the only way to enter the property. There would be no way to legally get the gun to the building so no need to post the building itself.

Of course, the sign would be invalid if the parking lot was owned or leased by a governmental entity. From what the OP was saying, I think he works for a local government, thus making it an invalid posting. Either way, he could legally have the gun in his car while he is at work. He could legally carry it into the office also, I think, but he could get fired then. I believe the parking lot law would cover him from getting fired for having the gun in the car.

[Keith B]

TAM,

My opinion on the issue of CHL, 30.06, and MPA is that we generally over complicate things by not looking at them in the right order. Under the MPA, it is not against the law to have a gun in your car (generally, with the known limitations, etc.). So if the gun is in the car, you are carrying without breaking the law. The CHL is an exception to the application of the law. So, it can only apply when you are otherwise breaking the law. It does apply the minute you get out of your car though.

30.06 applies to any property anywhere that is posted, but only when you are carrying under the exception to the law granted by your CHL. So, a private property owner can post a parking lot right at the entrance to it. It would be illegal to walk past the sign. But if you are in your car, you are not breaking the law so you are not carrying under your CHL's authority. So it is not illegal for a CHL to drive into a posted parking lot with a gun. But he has received the notice, so he would be breaking the law if he got out of the car with the gun while anywhere on the property, including in the parking lot.

In effect, in my opinion, posting the lot pretty much means there is no need to post the building itself if the lot is the only way to enter the property. There would be no way to legally get the gun to the building so no need to post the building itself.

Of course, the sign would be invalid if the parking lot was owned or leased by a governmental entity. From what the OP was saying, I think he works for a local government, thus making it an invalid posting. Either way, he could legally have the gun in his car while he is at work. He could legally carry it into the office also, I think, but he could get fired then. I believe the parking lot law would cover him from getting fired for having the gun in the car.

So sjfcontrol doesn't have to tell me the 3rd time.

[SewTexas]

I could be wrong but If it's a city owned yard, then shouldn't 30.06 be out of the picture?

[longtooth]

My work place is a city yard!! Street , water works for utility repairs water & sewer, streets,,
And is it ok to keep replying back an forth on a topic ?? Like I'm doing ! Are do we have to private message back an forth!

Conversation back & forth just like visiting is good, fine, great. We are glad to have you. Only time I suggest going to PM for sure is if you are haveing a personal conversation instead of public or might want to ask, or say something that might reveal more info than you want public.

Keep learning & have a great day.