another 30.06 question

[bblhd672]

I searched the website for 30.06, and since we have kids we go to a lot of these places. Just to name a few that we frequent that have 30.06 signs: AMC theaters, Cinemark, Half Priced Books, Ikea, Main Event, Sprouts Market, Whole Foods, Strikz, American Girl, Cheesecake Factory, Toys R Us, Golfsmith, Pinstack, auto dealers, etc. There are more but I tend to get frustrated listing all of them.

Welcome to the forum.

Many of these on your list my wife and I (although grudgingly) do business with as well. Some she has allowed me to put off limits, mainly cause she don't care for them anyway. It's frustrating, aggravating and will raise your blood pressure, but there are lots of places that do not prohibit concealed carry as alternatives to those on the list.

Breath a sigh of relief and say, "Thank God I don't live in (California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc)."

Have you downloaded the Texas3006.com app?

[CZp10]

Is it just me or do these two sentences seem contradictory?

Thank you for posting. I don’t see them as contradictory since I respect the right of any private property owner to be able to ask anyone to leave. My problem is specifically how the law is written. The fact that a sign makes a concealed carry person a criminal is what I want changed. I am not opposed to them asking me to leave, and (although I don’t like it) I am not even complaining about having to pay a fine if I accidently enter a business with a sign. A civil matter is not a big deal, but a permanent criminal conviction is a serious thing.

In a perfect world I would like to be able to carry anywhere law enforcement can carry, and I would be willing to pay for significant extra training to obtain that right. We need many, many more well trained, responsible, armed citizens ready to stop bad things from happening.

I posted above with the list of places we go a lot, I was simply disheartened to learn how many businesses have 30.06 signs, and that is in addition to any federal land, amusement parks, houses of worship, schools, etc.

[bayou]

FYI Federal parks are not off limits, the offices are. Houses of Worship are not off limits unless posted.

[Pariah3j]

Thank you very much for all the great replies, this is a very helpful community . I really wish the antigun crowd knew what great people the vast majority of carry advocates are.

If there is someone here with direct knowledge of this I would appreciate them setting me straight, but I think some people may be underestimating the ramifications of being convicted of a criminal offense.

A class C misdemeanor of 30.06 would seem to be “Criminal Trespass”. The key being that once you pay the $200 you are admitting guilt and you will have a permanent record of being convicted of a crime. It is not anything like a traffic ticket. Texas officers have the right to arrest you for class C misdemeanors as well.

From a Texas attorney’s websites it shows that Class C convictions can be seen by private employers in background checks and that can be used to deny you employment. You have the right to fight it in court but you will not be provided with an attorney, you must hire your own whether you can afford it or not. Depending on the case it will easily cost 5000 to 10000 dollars.

Texas DPS says that if you get more than one of these 30.06 class C violations the courts will most likely raise it to a higher more serious conviction, and that can be used to revoke your concealed carry permit, and a higher misdemeanor can result in jail time.

I realize that these might seem unlikely consequences to some, but I still believe it is far more serious that most are assuming.

Nope 30.06 and 30.07 only turn into Criminal Trespass when you refuse to leave after being given notice. While I believe you are correct that a company could see a Class C conviction during a background check, most of them don't - Most specifically ask if you've been charged with 'anything above a Class C', meaning they aren't looking for them or care - and yes, you can be arrested for a Class C traffic violation as well, but it isn't the norm.

Here's how it will typically go down as I see it - if the place is posted 30.06, properly or not and you carry past the sign. In most cases, it will be an employee or manager that notices you carrying(big if from my personal experience). At that point they will notify you that you are not allowed to carry in that location, you comply and leave and that is the end of the story. There has only been one story/incident I've heard of where an officer was called to notify someone - and they were OC'ing in a restaurant with improperly posted 'signs'(wasn't a sign, was a xeroxed copy of the 30.07 sign on printer paper if I remember correctly). And they weren't charged once he explained the law to the officer, was just asked to leave.

I believe you will be hard pressed to find any 30.06 convictions in the last few years, much less one that was upgraded to a more serious conviction. IANAL, but I believe they would have to prove you purposely violated 30.06 multiple times knowingly to get something like that to stick - so unless you've gotten multiple tickets for violating 30.06 at the same location or a pattern of ignoring the signs, I believe that would be a tough one to prove.

I do get your fear/anxiety about the issue, but it's a similar feeling a lot of us go through when we first get licensed. You feel like everyone can tell you are packing and looking at you. Eventually, you realize very few if any notice, unless they are an LTC or peace officer - even while open carrying.

As I stated before, I believe any business open to the public shouldn't be allowed to post 30.06. Private property or offices not open to the general public I believe should be allowed, but until the law changes it's just my opinion(and you know what they say about opinions and rear-ends).

[Vol Texan]

Is it just me or do these two sentences seem contradictory?

Thank you for posting. I don’t see them as contradictory since I respect the right of any private property owner to be able to ask anyone to leave. My problem is specifically how the law is written. The fact that a sign makes a concealed carry person a criminal is what I want changed. I am not opposed to them asking me to leave, and (although I don’t like it) I am not even complaining about having to pay a fine if I accidently enter a business with a sign. A civil matter is not a big deal, but a permanent criminal conviction is a serious thing.

In a perfect world I would like to be able to carry anywhere law enforcement can carry, and I would be willing to pay for significant extra training to obtain that right. We need many, many more well trained, responsible, armed citizens ready to stop bad things from happening.

I posted above with the list of places we go a lot, I was simply disheartened to learn how many businesses have 30.06 signs, and that is in addition to any federal land, amusement parks, houses of worship, schools, etc.

I definitely understand your thought pattern here.

I agree with the idea that a private property owner should have the right to decide who comes on the property. But applying the force of law to one specific sign, for one specific kind of person seems like it should go away.

Sure, a 'no trespassing' sign has the force of law that applies to all - cross it and you have legal consequences. But that applies to everyone, not just a select few. 'No shoes, no shirt, no service' is a simple enough sign to understand, but if you ignore it and walk inside, then (a) you can still be asked to leave, and (b) you have not broken the law just by walking inside.

Now, the folks where were here when the original CHL laws were passed will tell us about how the 30.06 was a good compromise, and without it, we never would have gotten CHL passed in the first place. There were powers to be that wanted any old sign to have the force of law, but they successfully the 30.06 rules passed so that we wouldn't be criminally responsible for accidentally missing an easily miss-able sign.

I'm glad that original compromise was made, in order to get the CHL program off the ground here in Texas. I was also happy when it got changed so that if I accidentally miss a sign, I now get a Class C instead of a Class A misdemeanor. I'll be even happier if and when they remove the force of law altogether from the signs.

Note that I'm NOT advocating limitation of private property rights. I do believe those are important. However, I will be happy if and when private property rights would be applied equally so that oral notice is valid every time, but with no exceptions carved out in the law that adds the force of law to just one type of sign, for just one class of citizen.

And, welcome to the forum!

[ninjabread]

Get a red cross first aid card and soon you can ignore 30.06 signs.

[CZp10]

Get a red cross first aid card and soon you can ignore 30.06 signs.

Seriously? Can I ask how that works? I am not familiar with it.

[ninjabread]

HB 435 takes effect next month.

[CZp10]

HB 435 takes effect next month.

Ok, thanks. I read that but I am not clear on what the exact legal definition of "Volunteer emergency services personnel".
So just getting a Red Cross certification counts, or is there something you need to do for Texas?
Sorry for all the questions and thanks very much for the help.

[CZp10]

Just did some reading on HB435, wow, what a confusing and vague amendment that is. Whoever wrote that either made some big mistakes or seemed to have intentionally eliminated 30.06 and 30.07 almost completely. I would assume they meant to write that 30.06 and 30.07 can be defended against when volunteer emergency personnel are entering a prohibited business in order to provide immediate assistance. However, the way it is written, it doesn’t mention anything about needing to enter to provide aid.

With extremely little effort, anyone can be considered as: “any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations.”

So does this mean my basic problem and complaints about 30.06 have just effectively been removed via HB435? Any opinions on this would be much appreciated.

[Liberty]

It wasn't an accident. Not at all. There are actually people in the legislature that know what they are doing as well as people who don't pay close attention.

So does this mean my basic problem and complaints about 30.06 have just effectively been removed via HB435? Any opinions on this would be much appreciated.

I don't know how well a Red Cross CPR card is going to hold up, but the truth is even before this law. Practically speaking there haven't been hundreds of LTC holders being hauled off to prison, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

[LDB415]

we might not like the sign but we respect it.

I'll disagree, for myself anyway, that I don't respect it at all but I do adhere to it and take my money elsewhere.

[crazy2medic]

Get a red cross first aid card and soon you can ignore 30.06 signs.

??? So as a Certified Texas Paramedic with a CPR, ACLS, PHTLS, PALS and other medical cards I can ignore 30.06 signs? Are you sure?

[twomillenium]

After reading this thread, there are several things that flagged in the back of my mind. The OP said that he was new to LTC, so I would think that the OP had taken the course fairly recent. Did the OP pay attention in class or did the instructor not sufficiently cover the material? No one ever becomes "automatically" a criminal when they set foot past a posted door. They must be charged and go to trial and then be convicted. The charge would be made only after you refuse to immediately leave after being asked to do so. I cannot understand why one would not immediately leave when legally asked to do so for any legal reason.
It is the right for the property owner to post his property for anything that he has the legal right, no matter how misguided his understanding or thinking is.
It is my understanding that an LEO does not have to disarm because of the .06/07 signs. If he is off duty, (off the clock) he can be asked to leave just like any other citizen but not because he is armed, the business can still legally refuse service. The Conroe Police Chief, knew that the reason he was asked to leave was not legal (it turned out to be a misinformed employee), I applaud his restraint.
I would encourage the OP to read or reread his CHL 16 and regularly participate in the very good forum. OH and welcome to the forum.

[OlBill]

This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.

And that needs to be corrected.