Hosptal ER

[seamusTX]

That's good to hear.

- Jim

[MarshalMatt]

Well at the front doors, and the main ER doors are well marked but where the Ambulances enter is not posted and that's the door his wife used to take Frank into the ER at.

I was wondering how often this happens, like Car Accidents ,Heart attacks, and other general reason you would have to be brought in by EMS??

300shooter

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

[Keith B]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

[rockinar]

Well I have a question, what happens when your taken to the hospital ER with lets say chest pains,

OK your wife drives you to the ER and when your taken back to a bed they find your legally carried handgun in your waist band ???

there is a reason for this question, I have read or heard that a nurse took the legally carried handgun and gave it to law Enforcement and the handgun was not returned and the LE filled charges on the gent for a 30.06 violation .

What do you do in this situation????? your wife is not a CHL holder and she is worried about getting you to the ER and you aren't thinking as the chest pain has your attention.


300shooter

If you walked in on your own two feet, I would say you're in for trouble. If they had nurses come pull you out of the car at the entrance, I don't think this would be any issue. You would probably lose your gun though. I'm sure they would give it to the police. I don't see them trying to prosecute you. But I don't see them doing you any favors either.

[cb1000rider]

Not me but a Close friend, he sues the PD to get his gun back.

I am trying to get him to sign up and tell his story first hand.

I hope to read about his story... Sounds like a really expensive gun!

[MarshalMatt]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

[jbarn]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

[Keith B]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

Sure they do. If you legitimately entered a business that you were unaware was posted at other entrances, then they will have to prove you had received proepr notice during your trial. You would also have to prove you hadn't received notice during the trial.

[jbarn]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

Sure they do. If you legitimately entered a business that you were unaware was posted at other entrances, then they will have to prove you had received proepr notice during your trial. You would also have to prove you hadn't received notice during the trial.

Sorry Keith, I disagree. 30.06 states you received notice if there was a properly posted sign. A jury might have to determine if a sign met the requirements, but if they agree that the sign was posted properly then whether you saw it is irrelevant.

[howdy]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

Sure they do. If you legitimately entered a business that you were unaware was posted at other entrances, then they will have to prove you had received proepr notice during your trial. You would also have to prove you hadn't received notice during the trial.

Sorry Keith, I disagree. 30.06 states you received notice if there was a properly posted sign. A jury might have to determine if a sign met the requirements, but if they agree that the sign was posted properly then whether you saw it is irrelevant.

Well, here we go with semantics. I agree more with Keith. I teach that most, if not all , places of business have cameras pointed at their doors. The law says "(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public." I think you can argue effectively (might be costly and up to a jury) what the word "conspicuous" means. The video would show you entering an unmarked door and it would be up to the State to prove you knew the place was legally posted. As an example, Mills Mall in Katy has old wording 30.06 signs (so not valid anyway) at all their main entrances. BUT, there are many other ways to enter the Mall without ever going through a main entrance. There are no more signs anywhere in the Mall. How could a jury logically convict if you could prove you entered by an unmarked door and never even went near a sign. I tell people to follow the law and not try to sharpshoot the rules. If they know a business has 30.06 signs up on most doors, either don't carry or go somewhere else.

[jbarn]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

Sure they do. If you legitimately entered a business that you were unaware was posted at other entrances, then they will have to prove you had received proepr notice during your trial. You would also have to prove you hadn't received notice during the trial.

Sorry Keith, I disagree. 30.06 states you received notice if there was a properly posted sign. A jury might have to determine if a sign met the requirements, but if they agree that the sign was posted properly then whether you saw it is irrelevant.

Well, here we go with semantics. I agree more with Keith. I teach that most, if not all , places of business have cameras pointed at their doors. The law says "(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public." I think you can argue effectively (might be costly and up to a jury) what the word "conspicuous" means. The video would show you entering an unmarked door and it would be up to the State to prove you knew the place was legally posted. As an example, Mills Mall in Katy has old wording 30.06 signs (so not valid anyway) at all their main entrances. BUT, there are many other ways to enter the Mall without ever going through a main entrance. There are no more signs anywhere in the Mall. How could a jury logically convict if you could prove you entered by an unmarked door and never even went near a sign. I tell people to follow the law and not try to sharpshoot the rules. If they know a business has 30.06 signs up on most doors, either don't carry or go somewhere else.

Who is going to get this video? The prosecution won't. ;)

A jury can consider that there was no way for you to receive notice, or rule that in your case the sign was not compliant. However, the state does not have to prove you saw the sign. Observing the sign is not an element of the offense.

[howdy]

See, this is where the problem lies...ALL entrances must have the 30.06 sign posted for the institution to be in compliance.

Sorry, that is incorrect. According to the penal code the sign must be 'displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public'. That means if you see the sign, anywhere, then you know the premises is off limits to you totally.

I stand corrected. What I mean't to post was that technically speaking, one who entered through an entrance that was not designated would not have been given proper notice by law. The signs at the other entrances may be "conspicuous" but if you never saw it...Not sure I would want to try it in court but...

The state does not have to prove you saw the sign.

Sure they do. If you legitimately entered a business that you were unaware was posted at other entrances, then they will have to prove you had received proepr notice during your trial. You would also have to prove you hadn't received notice during the trial.

Sorry Keith, I disagree. 30.06 states you received notice if there was a properly posted sign. A jury might have to determine if a sign met the requirements, but if they agree that the sign was posted properly then whether you saw it is irrelevant.

Well, here we go with semantics. I agree more with Keith. I teach that most, if not all , places of business have cameras pointed at their doors. The law says "(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public." I think you can argue effectively (might be costly and up to a jury) what the word "conspicuous" means. The video would show you entering an unmarked door and it would be up to the State to prove you knew the place was legally posted. As an example, Mills Mall in Katy has old wording 30.06 signs (so not valid anyway) at all their main entrances. BUT, there are many other ways to enter the Mall without ever going through a main entrance. There are no more signs anywhere in the Mall. How could a jury logically convict if you could prove you entered by an unmarked door and never even went near a sign. I tell people to follow the law and not try to sharpshoot the rules. If they know a business has 30.06 signs up on most doors, either don't carry or go somewhere else.

Who is going to get this video? The prosecution won't. ;)

A jury can consider that there was no way for you to receive notice, or rule that in your case the sign was not compliant. However, the state does not have to prove you saw the sign. Observing the sign is not an element of the offense.

But the sign being conspicuous is

[jbarn]

**Snip for ease of reading***

But the sign being conspicuous is

I agree 100%. THAT is a matter of fact for the court.

[howdy]

**Snip for ease of reading***

But the sign being conspicuous is

I agree 100%. THAT is a matter of fact for the court.

This is why I am on the forum. This kind of discussion makes me dust off my copy of the laws and try to understand what they really mean. We can all see that we walk on slippery slopes sometimes and intelligent people, jurys included, can see thing differently.