State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

[7075-T7]

Wow, a lot happened last night in thsi thread.

I didn't ask the question because I didn't know about 30.06, I simply posed the question because there was talk about 30.06 not being completely obvious in lawyer speak. Though, I have a defense to prosecution if it's ever tested.

Laywer: did you notice the "no guns sign" at the door?
Me: No.
Lawyer: Did you look for the 30.06 sign for the right to carry?
Me: Yes, and I did not see one.

Since for us 30.06 is legal notice as defined by the statute, then we would not automatically see or even notice the other signs, since we do not have to look for them. I mean, unless it was 2" high letters ON the front door, then it would be reasonable to assume that you didn't see it. IANAL but I know one.

[57Coastie]

I suspect that the judge may need to read the law a little bit deeper (see Scott's analysis), but I must keep this to myself in respect for his office, and I do not plan to carry his water any further. I also have no doubt that I sloppily regurgitated what I thought he suggested, which would be my bad, not (necessarily) his. If he wants to enter into this "friendly discussion" I might suggest it, but I don't think he will take me up on it. I can just hear his answer in the back of my mind, "Jim, the judge to talk to about this some day is the judge sitting on the bench up there in front of you."

I must say that after a good night's sleep I am ready to go on to other things, like the range, where I have an appointment with my son, and perhaps another member/friend, later today.

Cheers,

Jim

[chabouk]

PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

[A-R]

PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

[ScottDLS]

PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

If you go to trial and present your DEFENSE as evidence, the prosecution must refute your DEFENSE "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the same standard as for proving any criminal offense, only it requires that you present your DEFENSE as evidence. If we're going to get all wrapped up around a defense vs. non-applicability, I'll point out that the original CHL law in 1996 only provided a defense to prosecution for carrying a handgun at all. I carried...

There's about the same chance of getting successfully prosecuted for something for which you have statutory defense as there is for you to be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. I'm not saying it can't happen, and in each case you'll have to pay for your defense, but I'm not going to limit my activities based on something that might happen.

[A-R]

PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

If you go to trial and present your DEFENSE as evidence, the prosecution must refute your DEFENSE "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's the same standard as for proving any criminal offense, only it requires that you present your DEFENSE as evidence. If we're going to get all wrapped up around a defense vs. non-applicability, I'll point out that the original CHL law in 1996 only provided a defense to prosecution for carrying a handgun at all. I carried...

There's about the same chance of getting successfully prosecuted for something for which you have statutory defense as there is for you to be prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit. I'm not saying it can't happen, and in each case you'll have to pay for your defense, but I'm not going to limit my activities based on something that might happen.

Thanks Scott. Yet again, your analysis makes the most sense to me. Not disparaging any of the other well-reasoned arguments. This one just makes sense to me and is closest to my understand of the law AFAIKIANAL

[bdickens]

So why even have the 30.06 sign requirement?

[jmra]

I must say that after a good night's sleep I am ready to go on to other things, like the range, where I have an appointment with my son, and perhaps another member/friend, later today.

Cheers,

Jim

Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.

[C-dub]

Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.

Oh boy, now you've done it. Can open, worms everywhere!

There's gotta be some kind of permit for the business, but oh boy.

[jmra]

Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.

Oh boy, now you've done it. Can open, worms everywhere!

There's gotta be some kind of permit for the business, but oh boy.

I should have put a or a at the end of my post.

[C-dub]

I don't know about everyone else, but I thought I detected some sarcasm in there. It's all good.

[jmra]

I don't know about everyone else, but I thought I detected some sarcasm in there. It's all good.

Guilty as charged. I must be angry or displaying my own insecurities. At least that's what I am doing according to "Psychology Today".

[C-dub]

On the contrary. Unless you're the President, trying to clarify yourself is a good thing.

[57Coastie]

I must say that after a good night's sleep I am ready to go on to other things, like the range, where I have an appointment with my son, and perhaps another member/friend, later today.

Cheers,

Jim

Does that range happen to be in city limits? There are laws against discharging a firearm in city limits. Shooting at a range in city limits could get you in front of a judge. I know that sounds silly but it is very much the same argument as a chlee being charged because of a gun buster sign.

No comment. I take the 5th. Or is it the 2nd? Could be either one, I guess.

Jim

[A-R]

No comment. I take the 5th. Or is it the 2nd? Could be either one, I guess.

Jim

I take 'em all. Because they're all mine (and yours too). And ain't nobody gonna take 'em away from me.