Another 30.06 posting thread...

[jmra]

Looks pretty simple ...
If you are licensed under Art. 4413(29ee), TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES , then don't carry in there, the sign prohibits it !!!
I personally was licensed under CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE, so I'm ok.
However, you were given verbal notice now so ...

Does a gf telling you that her boss said he does not want employees or clients (of which he is neither) ccing in the building constitute verbal notice? Not saying that he should carry, but I don't see how this meets the legal requirements for verbal notice.

[C-dub]

Was he really? Does oral notice by someone stating company policy cut it or does one have to be told by someone with the authority to do so?

Even though I am a manager at my company I've been told I have no authority to enforce company policy with regards to security issues. The COO has told us all that security is everyone's responsibility, but when I ask to see someone's company ID, that wasn't displayed, and I didn't recognize them a complaint was made to HR and it trickled to my boss. He told me not to do that again and just notify security. A couple of our "security" folks required canes to get around and can't use the stairs. They have to use the elevator. A few more probably got this job after their retirement funds dwindled away with the market last year.

[RPB]

Looks pretty simple ...
If you are licensed under Art. 4413(29ee), TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES , then don't carry in there, the sign prohibits it !!!
I personally was licensed under CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE, so I'm ok.
However, you were given verbal notice now so ...

Does a gf telling you that her boss said he does not want employees or clients (of which he is neither) ccing in the building constitute verbal notice? Not saying that he should carry, but I don't see how this meets the legal requirements for verbal notice.

Was he really? Does oral notice by someone stating company policy cut it or does one have to be told by someone with the authority to do so?

Even though I am a manager at my company I've been told I have no authority to enforce company policy with regards to security issues. The COO has told us all that security is everyone's responsibility, but when I ask to see someone's company ID, that wasn't displayed, and I didn't recognize them a complaint was made to HR and it trickled to my boss. He told me not to do that again and just notify security. A couple of our "security" folks required canes to get around and can't use the stairs. They have to use the elevator. A few more probably got this job after their retirement funds dwindled away with the market last year.

Good points ...

My guess is that it depends on whether the gf (an employee) has "apparent authority to act for the owner" ..

(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.

Some people may have "apparent authority" even if they have no "real authority"

C-dub, even though you were told you had no real auythority in a matter, it may appear to me that you do, when I'm in your place of business, I might assume you do as manager ...

I don't know what position his gf, who is an employee, is in, whether she has "apparent" authority or not as an employee there... if she does, then he was given notice, if not, then no he wasn't.

[Big Tuna]

My take is this. If his girlfriend has has enough authority that her verbal comment is notice, then she has enough authority that her telling him it's ok to carry is effective consent and he has permission to carry.

IANAL
but his girlfriend is

[7075-T7]

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]

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

Verbal notice or a valid 30.06 sign carry the same weight. You can be arrested for criminal trespass once the requirement has been met.

One note, if you are in a place and receive the verbal notice, you must leave, but have not broken the law unless you refuse to leave. Same for going in, then seeing the 30.06; time to vacate.

[Originalist]

If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted.

Not saying I dont agree with you BUT (devil's advocate) what binding case law do you have to support that statement? I ask that only becuase since the Legislature left it "open" we must rely on the application of the statute in case law and to my knowledge there has been no significant ruling. There are also respected advocates of gun rights (Charles for one if I am not mistakem) who feel the wrong challenge at the wrong time could be disastrous for us.

[jmra]

If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted.

Not saying I dont agree with you BUT (devil's advocate) what binding case law do you have to support that statement? I ask that only becuase since the Legislature left it "open" we must rely on the application of the statute in case law and to my knowledge there has been no significant ruling. There are also respected advocates of gun rights (Charles for one if I am not mistakem) who feel the wrong challenge at the wrong time could be disastrous for us.

which statement are you asking a out? I made a couple in that quote.

[frazzled]

[quote="TxSigp229"]Jmra and Cwood, thanks for your replies.

Here's a pic of the 30.06 as it is posted in only the staff break room - none posted at any of their 3 entrances to the building.



quote]
Whats funny is thats the first time I have seen an actual 30.06 sign.

[Originalist]

Everything I left included in my post. The assumption, etc.

Like I said, on a personal level I agree with you but in the application of the statute (and it being ambiguous) we must rely on case law. And case law is alway a flip of the coin!

[RPB]

This is interesting.

I was just googling things and ran across this , notice that it was Revised 09/2009 , a blank complaint form

http://www.bellcountytx.com/countyatty/ ... 70013).pdf

I'm not commenting on it, other than it's interesting (in my layman's opinion).

But, YMMV oslt (Or Something Like That)

Thanks for fixing my broken link

[Keith B]

This is interesting.

I was just googling things and ran across this , not that it was Revised 09/2009 ,

http://www.bellcountytx.com/countyatty/pdf/570713%20(57070013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).pdf

Your link is not working.

[sjfcontrol]

link works if you add the ").pdf" to the end.

[Keith B]

I edited the link to get it to work.

[C-dub]

We need to be careful of our use of verbal vs. oral. I don't remember who, but someone pointed out to me sometime ago on this forum that "verbal" is not necessarily "oral." Verbal merely means "with words" and can be written, but "oral" means the spoken word or "by mouth."

The requirement as stated in 30.06 is specific that notice must be either oral or written and also goes further to define what written must include. And we are also aware that a sign has to have certain physical characteristics.