State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

[WildBill]

I just got off the phone with Monica at the TX DPS Concealed Handgun Dept, who informed me that businesses do not have to have the 30.06 sign. That if the sign says no guns, that is sufficient. When I related to her that their own website says that there must be a 30.06, she put me on hold to talk with a tec. When she came back, she again stated that if they have let you know verbally, written, or with any wording of sign that guns are not allowed, the a CHL holder is not permitted to carry.

While I KNOW she is wrong, that concerns me greatly that the phone person and a tec at the dept that handles this would both think this.

Feel free to call them at (512) 424-7293 and see if you get a different response. A simple "Does a business have to display a 30.06 to keep out chl's or does a generic no gun sign suffice" should be sufficient to see what they will say.

It's always easier for a bureaucrat to say "No." Wild Bill Dec 2009

[Big Tuna]

I think it's more fun to call up and ask the same exact question but substitute "off duty cops" for "CHL" and see what they say.

[ScottDLS]

She may be talking about if you are an employee of the business. It is my understanding that you can be charged with criminal trespass under 30.05 if you are an employee and you carry against company policy that you have been informed of in writing or verbally (usually by company manual). It is kind of a funny situation though, because I read an attorney general opinion that says you can be charged with criminal trespass under 30.05, but then in the statute itself, it is a defense to prosecution under 30.05 that you are a CHL holder. It was a question on the test when I took my CHL class, and the right answer was that you could be charged with criminal trespass if you had been informed by your employer. It is more likely they would just fire you, but it is possible.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... M#prohibit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From reading the statues, I am still not convinced that an employer doesn't have to post 30.06 in order to prohbit employees from carrying, despite DPS' interpretation to the contrary.

The Attorney General Opinion in the link is dated August 30, 1995 and is from that hack former AG, Dan Morales (but I digress). He may or may not have been right in his 40 page manifesto based on the law at the time, but the CHL laws have been revised in almost every legislative session since. Morales was not a fan of the CHL law when it was proposed and passed.

Most people posting here agree with you that the statute as currently written requires an employer to give you notice under 30.06 before you could be criminally charged for trespass. Per the statute, the notice can be oral notice by someone with the authority over the premises, or written, in which case it must follow the exact specification in the statute.

Don't forget, they can still fire you for ignoring a company policy or other non-30.06 notice. You just won't go to jail.

[57Coastie]

A lawyer (who has a CHL) once suggested to me that perhaps this is not quite as clear as reading the above posts assume. That is, notice is notice, but a particular type of notice is necessary for a CHL holder to be guilty of criminal trespass. Or, no matter how you are given notice that you are not welcome, then you are not welcome, and you may be denied entrance. Trespass may come into play if the notice is not compliant with 30.06.

Or, if will, nothing in the statutes says that absent notice compliant with 30.06 you are permitted, regardless of the wishes of the business, to carry concealed in the premises.

His point would suggest that the broad language used, quite innocently, with respect to 30.06 could result in one being a trespasser should, as an example, his carrying of a concealed handgun be detected, he is told to get out, and he refuses, on the basis that he had not been given effective 30.06 notice by the noncompliant sign on the door.

Which this unnamed lawyer threw out for me to think about. If he is correct, there is no real difference of opinion here, he would only be criticizing the way the operation of 30.06 is sometimes described.

Cheers,

Jim

[Oldgringo]

wgoforth wrote:

Here is a letter I just fired off to the CHL "E-mail us" address:
**********************************************************************
Sir, I spoke with a lady at your office today who identified herself as Monica. She was very courteous and respectful ....

When we had to write (everybody) about the hang up with Mrs. Oldgringo's plastic a couple of years ago, the CHL Manager had a woman's name. Just sayin'....

[RPB]

Maybe they outsourced the "call center" dept. to the people who used to handle Dell Tech Support in India as part of Gov't downsizing?
In which case ...
SCBALIIWINLIT !!! (She Could Be A Lawyer In India Who Is Not Licensed In Texas)

[frazzled]

I just got off the phone with Monica at the TX DPS Concealed Handgun Dept, who informed me that businesses do not have to have the 30.06 sign. That if the sign says no guns, that is sufficient. When I related to her that their own website says that there must be a 30.06, she put me on hold to talk with a tec. When she came back, she again stated that if they have let you know verbally, written, or with any wording of sign that guns are not allowed, the a CHL holder is not permitted to carry.

While I KNOW she is wrong, that concerns me greatly that the phone person and a tec at the dept that handles this would both think this.

Feel free to call them at (512) 424-7293 and see if you get a different response. A simple "Does a business have to display a 30.06 to keep out chl's or does a generic no gun sign suffice" should be sufficient to see what they will say.

its not relevant. She's neither a lawyer or prosecutor up to speed on the appropriate case law. Her opinion has the same weight as as the guy at the 7/11.

[ninemm]

Hey...who is the reporter that played as a pimp and went to the ACORN office? Maybe we can send him to that dept to ask and get it on film!

His name is James O’Keefe. I think he may be busy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2 ... cheme.html

[jimlongley]

Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.

And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.

Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.

[sjfcontrol]

Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.

And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.

Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.

How about adding that the sign must be displayed at all public entrances to the protected area?

[PUCKER]

Jim - that's the thing, most of the signs that I've come across are "no guns" or "gunbusters" signs, I've only seen a handful of 30.06 signs (valid or invalid). But I agree, it would be great, like I've mentioned before, that is has to be THE "official" sign, you know, like the TABC signs, etc...Hey, we've got prisoners making license plates, right? I'm sure they could set aside a production line for 30.06 signs.

Here's the possible "upside" to this...business owners that WANT to prohibit CHLs call up and talk to this gal at DPS...she tells them ANY sign will work...(do you see where I'm going with this?)...so the business owners just post up a gunbusters sign, no guns sign, etc...and NOT a valid 30.06 sign. Just a thought.

And those same business owners, having accidentally discovered that you are carrying counter to the sign that DPS told them was adequate and proper, at least attempt to have you arrested, and raise a big stink either way. And if you are arrested you are out the bucks for the ride and possibly even more if the cops and DA agree with the store owner and DPS. And the stink the store owner is raising gets picked up by the liberal media and they raise a whole new stink about arrogant gun owners attempting to carry on private property counter to the owner's wishes, and then the AG issues an opinion that ANY sign is good.

Nope - goal for 2011 legislative session - strong positive language in new legislation to replace the current language, making it absolutely clear where CHLs can carry, TO EVERYONE (not just us who can read) and that one, and only one, sign is the right sign and that all others will be considered invalid in the eyes of the law and not subject to arrest.

[wgoforth]

Hey...who is the reporter that played as a pimp and went to the ACORN office? Maybe we can send him to that dept to ask and get it on film!

His name is James O’Keefe. I think he may be busy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2 ... cheme.html

Yes, I was being quite facetious.

[7075-T7]

(note: I posed the same question in another thread, and realized that it was for this one... whoops)

A lot of confusing information has been brought up in theis thread. If it's "leagl verbal notice" to say no guns in here, and it's not "legal written notice" to have a no guns sign at the door (non 30.06), then is verbal notice held to a higher standard than written?

what I'm trying to get as is the "no guns" (non 30.06) sign legal notice per CHL statutes? I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm confused

[Keith B]

(note: I posed the same question in another thread, and realized that it was for this one... whoops)

A lot of confusing information has been brought up in theis thread. If it's "leagl verbal notice" to say no guns in here, and it's not "legal written notice" to have a no guns sign at the door (non 30.06), then is verbal notice held to a higher standard than written?

what I'm trying to get as is the "no guns" (non 30.06) sign legal notice per CHL statutes? I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm confused

No, it is not legal notice in respect to being able to arrest you for criminal trespass. It must meet the 30.06 requirements, be verbal or written notice in 30.06 form that is handed to you (can be smaller in size.)

[7075-T7]

(note: I posed the same question in another thread, and realized that it was for this one... whoops)

A lot of confusing information has been brought up in theis thread. If it's "leagl verbal notice" to say no guns in here, and it's not "legal written notice" to have a no guns sign at the door (non 30.06), then is verbal notice held to a higher standard than written?

what I'm trying to get as is the "no guns" (non 30.06) sign legal notice per CHL statutes? I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm confused

No, it is not legal notice in respect to being able to arrest you for criminal trespass. It must meet the 30.06 requirements, be verbal or written notice in 30.06 form that is handed to you (can be smaller in size.)

Oh, Ok. So they can't arrest you, but could still cause trouble if they can tell. Goes back to the "keep it concealed" part right?