AMC Theater at the Parks Mall... 30.06(kinda)

[A-R]

Yes, you are correct.
If "notice" was given, and a CHL carrier ignored it, that would be an offense.
However, the law states what "notice" is when a sign is used.

...

Therefore, "written communication" was not sufficient, and that means notice was not properly given.

Like I said, I love technicalities.

Kauboy, I agree with you. But the reply post to which I was responding stated:

But that is all he can do, even if the sign met all the specification of the law.

(emphasis added by me)

I was merely pointing out that IF the sign had met specs and IF you walk past such sign while carrying THEN you are in violation and you CAN BE arrested, not merely asked to leave as the above quoted portion seemed to indicate. Was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

[jimlongley]

The part that always bothers me about those "little" signs is that they may be held, by some activist judge, to meet 30.06 (c)(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, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or


Note the "OR" at the end.

Yes, it's a "sign" that doesn't meet (B) but it is a "written communication" on a "document" with the right language, which seems to me to be a very large and inconvenient loophole to be used against someone who passes it.

I don't fehave any problems about passing gunbusters signs, or improperly posted signs, or 30.05 signs like those at Dallas Love Field, but that little document in the window gives me pause.

[C-dub]

I was just wondering about this very wording Jim. It seems a bit contradictory in nature, but with the proper wording, regardless of size, may be legal. What if with your movie ticket they hand you a business card with this statute printed on it? Is that notice?

[C-dub]

To go just a little bit further with this. It has been discussed adnauseum, but my employer prohibits firearms on their property in the employee handbook. However, there are no signs at all prohibiting non-employees anywhere. Obviously, if caught I could and probably would be terminated. I honestly don't remember ever being "told" this policy. I've only read it in the handbook. Anyway, if I decided to carry at work or even leave it in my car and were discovered I think it has been noted that because I was not given proper notice I could not be prosecuted for anything. Now, if the proper wording were in the employee handbook in english and spanish in a standard 12 font that appears to be sufficient notice that i could be prosecuted for.

Right?

[mikeintexas]

To go just a little bit further with this. It has been discussed adnauseum, but my employer prohibits firearms on their property in the employee handbook. However, there are no signs at all prohibiting non-employees anywhere. Obviously, if caught I could and probably would be terminated. I honestly don't remember ever being "told" this policy. I've only read it in the handbook. Anyway, if I decided to carry at work or even leave it in my car and were discovered I think it has been noted that because I was not given proper notice I could not be prosecuted for anything. Now, if the proper wording were in the employee handbook in english and spanish in a standard 12 font that appears to be sufficient notice that i could be prosecuted for.

Right?

Most companies require a signature when you recieve your employee handbook that states by signing, you have read and understand the company policies in this handbook and will follow them. A punishment for not following may be termination.

As I understand, that qualifies as notice.

Anyone else have thoughts? I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

[dicion]

To go just a little bit further with this. It has been discussed adnauseum, but my employer prohibits firearms on their property in the employee handbook. However, there are no signs at all prohibiting non-employees anywhere. Obviously, if caught I could and probably would be terminated. I honestly don't remember ever being "told" this policy. I've only read it in the handbook. Anyway, if I decided to carry at work or even leave it in my car and were discovered I think it has been noted that because I was not given proper notice I could not be prosecuted for anything. Now, if the proper wording were in the employee handbook in english and spanish in a standard 12 font that appears to be sufficient notice that i could be prosecuted for.

Right?

Most companies require a signature when you recieve your employee handbook that states by signing, you have read and understand the company policies in this handbook and will follow them. A punishment for not following may be termination.

As I understand, that qualifies as notice.

Anyone else have thoughts? I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

Unless the text in the employee handbook meets 30.06 requirements, no, it is not 'notice'.

Can you be fired over it? Absolutely.
Can you be arrested over it? No.

[03Lightningrocks]

Be careful. They may post a "circle slash water" sign and ... class B misdemeanor trespass under 30.05 according to some arguments I've heard on this site.

Many movie theaters prohibit outside food and drink.

That is only applicable if they have the properly worded signage. otherwise, I walk right in with my concealed water and candy. I'm not recommending anyone else do this as I am sure nobody wants to be a legal test case, but I am a bit of a rebel and willing to take the chance in order to better afford my movie going experience.

I must also respectfully request that if you see a theater that doesn't have the proper signage to keep out contraband water and candy, please don't protest by writing a letter to the establishment about this flaw while threatening not to come back.

[mr surveyor]

The part that always bothers me about those "little" signs is that they may be held, by some activist judge, to meet 30.06 (c)(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, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or


Note the "OR" at the end.

Yes, it's a "sign" that doesn't meet (B) but it is a "written communication" on a "document" with the right language, which seems to me to be a very large and inconvenient loophole to be used against someone who passes it.

I don't fehave any problems about passing gunbusters signs, or improperly posted signs, or 30.05 signs like those at Dallas Love Field, but that little document in the window gives me pause.

ditto

I have wondered the same thing about the "either/or" language in the code.

[C-dub]

I had never really noticed it before. It looks like a company handbook is not proper notice unless it contains the exact wording. It doesn't even appear as though it needs to bea certain size or in English and Spanish. That only applies to signs.

So, we all agree one could be fired, but not prosecuted in a case where the employee handbook said no guns without the proper wording. Also, as long as we had not received verbal notification.

Very interesting.

[A-R]

The part that always bothers me about those "little" signs is that they may be held, by some activist judge, to meet 30.06 (c)(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, Govemment Code (concealed
handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed
handgun"; or


Note the "OR" at the end.

Yes, it's a "sign" that doesn't meet (B) but it is a "written communication" on a "document" with the right language, which seems to me to be a very large and inconvenient loophole to be used against someone who passes it.

I don't fehave any problems about passing gunbusters signs, or improperly posted signs, or 30.05 signs like those at Dallas Love Field, but that little document in the window gives me pause.

Great point, Jim. Can you imagine fighting in court over this issue and having lawyers and judges arguing over the legal meaning of "a card or other document" while your freedom and future ability to obtain a legal CHL hang in the balance?

[mr surveyor]

does the card or document have to have 1 inch block letters, English and Spanish, on contrasting colors?

Now, I wonder what the official defination of a card or document is? I would assume it would have to be a card or document hand delivered to the chl prior to entry, possibly on any sized media with any form of legible text?

surv

[webb3201]

Back to the car in my case....its not worth getting into trouble of principle. The intent of the owners was clear and although they did not correctly follow the law, I would still respect those wishes. I just don't have time to be a test legal case for them.

[jimlongley]

does the card or document have to have 1 inch block letters, English and Spanish, on contrasting colors?

Now, I wonder what the official defination of a card or document is? I would assume it would have to be a card or document hand delivered to the chl prior to entry, possibly on any sized media with any form of legible text?

surv

Nope, sub(A) doesn't specify a font or size, so I would assume as long as it was readable it could be business card size, or worse, printed on the back of your ticket.

DA "You didn't read both sides of your ticket, sir?"

ME "No, we were hurrying in and by the time we got into the darkened theater I couldn't see it. Besides who reads the back?"

DA "Your ticket is a legal contract, you should read the whole thing."

ME "I never even noticed that it was printed on the back."

DA "Well it is and your ignorance of that and the corresponding law is no excuse. Did you notice the hand lettered sheet of paper stuck to the inside of the ticket booth window?"

ME "Yes, but . . ."

DA "And you just chose to ignore it, in violation of the law?"

ME "But the sign doesn't . . ."

DA "That was not a sign, as specified in subpart (B) of the law, it was a document as specified in subpart (A)."

. . .

Jury "Guilty in the first degree, of sheer stupidity."

I don't even want to try to think about how it would work on appeal. It looks like a loophole in the law to me, I think that wording should either be eliminated or modified to include a requirement that the CHL holder be presented with the document or card and both parties sign for it.

[mr surveyor]

I don't even want to try to think about how it would work on appeal. It looks like a loophole in the law to me, I think that wording should either be eliminated or modified to include a requirement that the CHL holder be presented with the document or card and both parties sign for it.

I'm with you. This particular line of code has bugged me for a long time. I hope there will be some clarification on the horizon soon.

[C-dub]

While I still think the "sign" in some of these ticket booth windows is not valid. I do worry that some of these places may figure out the thing about printing the wording on the back of a ticket. However, like my own employer, they apparently either don't care to find out how to follow the rules, only want to appear to restrict weapons, or have poor lawyers advising them.