TexasCHLforum.com

Today I noticed the following sign at my doctor's office:
For those unable to view the picture, the English text reads: "Pursuant to Sections 30.06 and 30.07 Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with a Handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun or a handgun that is carried openly." (The equivalent Spanish follows.)

As you can see, the 30.06 and 30.07 language has been combined, attempting to ban both concealed and open carry in one sign instead of two separate signs. Is this a valid notification?

I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, BUT...

By the letter of the law, it's not an enforceable posting.

By the spirit of the law, I can't believe it's an enforceable posting.

I would speculate that an attempt to openly carry a pistol would result in an oral notification which would of course be enforceable should you fail to leave the premises.

My guess is that before this is all over, we might finally have some of that 30.06/30.07 case law we've never had before, eventually ending some of the mass speculation.

And all this is just one layman's opinion...

I agree with cbunt1. By law not legal, and if you open carry you're going to get asked to leave if they don't just call the police first thing out.

I would still CC if I was forced to be in there for some reason, but as said above, I wouldn't OC (technically I will almost never OC anyway but you get the point).

Actually, I just re-read the OP and saw that it's a doctor's office. If I'm the patient, I would not not even CC because you may be revealed and who knows how they'll react.

I bet they don't want those big ugly signs that are being sold by the anti crowd. They take up a lot of space and are very unattractive, so these folks are trying to cut a corner.

In their attempt to be innovative the did nothing but post a non compliant sign.

whether you wish to observe the non compliant sign and risk being given oral notification which permanently sticks to you like glue is up to you.

Most won't open carry past that sign. Many would conceal carry past that sign.

tex

Invalid sign, PROBABLY unenforceable but intent is clear. They don't want you carrying.

Is there any case law where there was no prosecution or a conviction was overturned due to an invalid sign?

dhoobler wrote:Is there any case law where there was no prosecution or a conviction was overturned due to an invalid sign?

There was a Plano nurse that carried in a non-posted hospital and the DA didn't prosecute. If you do a decent job CC'ing it's highly unlikely it's ever going to court.

chamberc wrote:Invalid sign, PROBABLY unenforceable but intent is clear. They don't want you carrying.

They have to A) post a compliant sign, B) give verbal notification, or C) hand you a card with the compliant verbiage. If "intent" was all that mattered anyone could post any old sign like they used to be able to.

ScottDLS wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Is there any case law where there was no prosecution or a conviction was overturned due to an invalid sign?

There was a Plano nurse that carried in a non-posted hospital and the DA didn't prosecute. If you do a decent job CC'ing it's highly unlikely it's ever going to court.

There is a difference between a non-posted location and a location that is posted with an invalid sign.

dhoobler wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Is there any case law where there was no prosecution or a conviction was overturned due to an invalid sign?

There was a Plano nurse that carried in a non-posted hospital and the DA didn't prosecute. If you do a decent job CC'ing it's highly unlikely it's ever going to court.

There is a difference between a non-posted location and a location that is posted with an invalid sign.

Legally there is not. Sign for "notice" are clearly defined in the law. Maybe this is why in the DPS statistics there have been no convictions on PC 30.06 in 18+ years, at least last time I looked. I'm not waiting for a judge to tell me I can do something that's already legal.

doncb wrote:

chamberc wrote:Invalid sign, PROBABLY unenforceable but intent is clear. They don't want you carrying.

They have to A) post a compliant sign, B) give verbal notification, or C) hand you a card with the compliant verbiage. If "intent" was all that mattered anyone could post any old sign like they used to be able to.

as CHL/TLC holders we follow what is written on the law books, is it asking too much for those who want to post signs to follow the same laws that we have to follow??

Sign is not legal. OC is not going to go well there, but I'll CC there all day long.

I'd worry about interpretation in court. A valid 30.06 sign can have a slashed circle over a handgun, and even though that isn't required, it doesn't invalidate the sign.

If a sign has all the words for a valid 30.06 sign, and also happens to intermingle the words for a 30.07, my fight will be with my word processor or with a quick chat with the manager. Not to school him on sign verbiage, but on the unwholesomeness of hoplophobia.

Guns, good. Criminals, bad. Unarmed citizens, sitting ducks.

There is no such thing as an "illegal" 30.06 or 30.07 sign. There are enforceable signs and unenforceable signs. Enforceable signs have the force of law behind them. Unenforceable signs do not.

There is no legal penalty for posting an unenforceable 30.06, 30.07, gun-buster, ghost buster or other sign unless you are a governmental agency posting a 30.06 sign on a premises that is not off limits by statue.