Businesses that prohibit CHL

[onerifle]

What do you think about adding a section for businessess/locations posted 30.06 (I always wondered if that irony was intentional...) or 30.05? I'm sure TSRA tries, but I wonder how accurate some of their website postings are...


We could then join or begin organized campaigns to get them to understand the folly of their ways by not spending a cent there. The local touch would help as well, I would think.

[Suckhow]

Sharpstown Mall
Katy Mills Mall
True MRI

[onerifle]

Last time I was at Katy Mills, the entrance from "the really, really big outdoor sporting goods store" was not posted. Kind of similar to the exception at Sharpstown.

Not sure if that has changed since the last time I was there.


Maybe it's time for a letter writing campaign.

[txinvestigator]

Just remember the law does not require that every entrance be posted.

[onerifle]

Just remember the law does not require that every entrance be posted.

Can you please provide a cite? I checked the statute, and that's not specifically stated, or (to me, anyway), implied.

Thanks.

[jimlongley]

Grapevine Mills near DFW airport has some entrances posted, but none of the entrances through the anchor stores are.

Calls and letters to the mall and the national corporation elicited a response that they are only doing what the other malls in the area do. Interesting in light of them being one of the few posted in the DFW area. Letters stating that have gone unanswered, and when I had them on the phone they told me that I had obviously not checked the right malls.

So I carded them and won't go back.

[txinvestigator]

Just remember the law does not require that every entrance be posted.

Can you please provide a cite? I checked the statute, and that's not specifically stated, or (to me, anyway), implied.

Thanks.

The law states this about the 30.06 sign



(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

The full text:


Text
§30.06. Trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without
effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a
concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.

(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.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical
to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by
holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may
not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(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.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(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.




The law only requires that the sign be conspicuously visible. There is no requirement for it to be at "every entrance accessable by the public" or any other such language.

[anygunanywhere]

Therefore, if it is not posted at every entrance, enter at the entrance that is not posted and carry. If the entrance is not posted, it is not conspicuous, and I couldn't see it, so I have not been warned. Pretty simple.

[RatMan]

Therefore, if it is not posted at every entrance, enter at the entrance that is not posted and carry. If the entrance is not posted, it is not conspicuous, and I couldn't see it, so I have not been warned. Pretty simple.

Yup! When I took my CHL class that's exactly what the instructor said he did. He told us of a shopping center, mall, that had three of the four entrances posted. As he said, "Guess which entrance I use?"

[txinvestigator]

Therefore, if it is not posted at every entrance, enter at the entrance that is not posted and carry. If the entrance is not posted, it is not conspicuous, and I couldn't see it, so I have not been warned. Pretty simple.

Yup! When I took my CHL class that's exactly what the instructor said he did. He told us of a shopping center, mall, that had three of the four entrances posted. As he said, "Guess which entrance I use?"

He is violating the law. He knows entry to him while carrying is forbidden.

You guys are missing the point.

[HighVelocity]

There is nothing in the mall that can't be purchased elsewhere. Malls are the devil!

[onerifle]

If I walk into Katy Mills mall through the entrance that I referred to, it is not posted. I actually have never entered the mall through any other entrance (seriously). Because I have been "notified" via this, and several other internet forums, does not mean I have been given notice as required under the statute. If one enters a location through an entrance that is not posted, and leaves through same- how is that in violation when the sign has never been seen?

It is not the same principle as a location that is 51%- where the absence of a 51% sign in a prohibited location is not a defense to prosecution...


I wonder if Chas can weigh in on this one....

[txinvestigator]

If I walk into Katy Mills mall through the entrance that I referred to, it is not posted. I actually have never entered the mall through any other entrance (seriously). Because I have been "notified" via this, and several other internet forums, does not mean I have been given notice as required under the statute. If one enters a location through an entrance that is not posted, and leaves through same- how is that in violation when the sign has never been seen?

It is not the same principle as a location that is 51%- where the absence of a 51% sign in a prohibited location is not a defense to prosecution...


I wonder if Chas can weigh in on this one....

I would agree with your situation.

HOwever if you see a sign at one entrance, and walk to another and don't find a sign, you are in violation.

I think if the legislators had meant the law to require a sign a every entrance, wording to that effect would have been included in the statute.

[Charles L. Cotton]

While Tex. Penal Code Section 30.06 does not include express language requiring a sign at each entrance, it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction if even a single door did not have the required sign. There are requirements that are implicit in the statute, without which the statute would be vague and unenforceable.

For example, 30.06(c)(3) states that written notice can be by a card (as opposed to a sign), but it does not say the card must be handed to the person sought to be charged under 30.06. Even though handing the card to a person is not expressly required by the statute, it is one of the requirements implicit in the statute to make it enforceable.

Also, Section 30.06 is a relatively new statute, so there likely will be few if any appellate court decisions dealing with it’s provisions. Therefore, the courts will look to the case law interpreting the general criminal trespass statute, i.e. 30.05, to address vague issues, so long as the express language of 30.06 is not ignored. For example, 30.05(b)(2)(C) requires “a sign or signs [be] posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; . . .� If there are un-posted entrances to a building, then the owner has not met the requirement of this portion of the statute. Note also that 30.05(b)(2)(C) refers to “the� (singular) entrance, not “an� entrance.

If you enter through an un-posted entrance, then you have not been given effective notice. However, if you were to advise the arresting officer that you saw the sign on the front door, but chose to come in through the un-posted side door, then you just made your attorney’s job much harder!

Seriously, remember that the 5th amendment guarantees you the right not to talk to anyone, or to be called as a witness against yourself at trial. If you haven't made a damaging statement to the building owner or the arresting officer, and there is an un-posted entrance, there will likely be no one to testify that you were aware of a proper 30.06 sign.

Regards,
Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm moving this thread to the General Texas CHL Discussion Section, rather than leaving it in Site Questions & Suggestions. Since there is already a post in the links section for businesses posting 30.06 signs, there is no reason to start an entirely new forum.

Thanks,
Chas.