Sea World (San Antonio) Not Posted

[gigag04]

I think effective ORAL notice should be a direct reading out loud of 30.06 addressed to US.

THAT would be funny.

[stevie_d_64]

Stevie, perhaps Charles can shed some more light on this, but it is my understanding that verbal instructions to leave (or not to carry onto a premises) is considered effective notice under 30.06. I could be wrong, but consider the following:

30.06 (b) states:

"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."

It goes on to define what "written communication" is, but it never defines what oral communication is. To me, that means that if someone with the authority to act for the owner (like the guy searching bags) tells me that I cannot carry a handgun on the premises then it becomes unlawful for me to do so. If I am reading 30.06 correctly, carrying on the premises after being told by a person with authority to act for the owner tells me not to would be a Class A Misdemeanor. The only exception to that, as I understand it, would be if the property was owned or leased by a government entity....in which case 30.06 would not apply.

Am I wrong in my logic?

I do see where you're coming from on this...But would you think the "oral" notice would have to comply with some form of official format or verbage??? I have not heard of anything to that idea...Not sure if its ever been implemented or become a real issue...

All I am getting at, is that I think that a facility that does not post a 30.06 sign (written notification), and is not on the forbidden list already enumerated in the law...But conducts "bag searches", and may even have metal detectors, and wanding, to screen people coming into the facility cannot legally (bind you) tell you: "You can't bring a guuuunnn in here!"

Should the "oral" notification officially be the actual 30.06 statue read to you right then and there??? In English and Spanish??? Wouldn't that be a hoot to see people trying to read that thing, to one of us, if that became the official lawful procedure???

I know I am wrong (I've known that all along), but there are too many negatives (working against our community) that support the further eroding of our basic right to keep and bear arms, for whatever reason we feel is necessary...

I believe it should be a priority for our community to start turning the tables on the restrictive side of the argument, by making it extremely hard for their agenda to implement and enforce un-Constitutional restrictions and laws against us...

Put the burn on them if they want to get what they want...

Just my crazy idea...

[stevie_d_64]

I think effective ORAL notice should be a direct reading out loud of 30.06 addressed to US.

THAT would be funny.

You beat me to the punch...

[gigag04]

Its true though!

How do we know the extent to which a verbal warning was considered effective?

Surely "you cannot bring your gun in here" would qualify. But what about if they just give you a hard time, and then call the cops after you leave and then say "we tried to warn him/her!"

-nick

[Charles L. Cotton]

I vaguely recall the committee discussions about 30.06 when it was being drafted and perhaps amended. The majority of the focus was on the sign. In fact, as originally drafted, the bill required both verbal warning and a sign, but the anti’s caught that one and it was changed to “or.�

As written, 30.06(a)(2)(A) does require that notice must be given that “entry by a license holder . . .� is forbidden, so it could be argued that a verbal notice should/must contain information that would allow the CHL holder to determine that the prohibition applies to a CHL holder, not merely to unlicensed possession. I would not attempt to rely upon this distinction! It may be correct, but if you are arrested, you’ll be spending a lot of money in an attempt to prove the verbal warning was lacking.

As a practical matter, a verbal warning is unlikely to be given, unless the property owner knows or suspects that a CHL is carrying a gun on the property. No one is going to have a recording playing that advises folks that no guns are allowed. It could be a metal detector or purse inspection that detects the pistol, among other possibilities. The CHL is then told he/she can’t bring a gun into the building and the CHL responds with “I have a CHL.� Owner then says “I don’t care, you can’t bring a gun in here.� I am certain this would be sufficient to get you arrested, prosecuted and convicted, if you ignore that warning and attempt to rely upon the failure of the property owner to say “even CHL holders can’t bring guns in here� or something to that effect. Be safe; if someone tells you no guns, then don’t go in. I have never heard of anyone being given a verbal warning, but it probably does happen on rare occasions.

Regards,
Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Be safe; if someone tells you no guns, then don’t go in. I have never heard of anyone being given a verbal warning, but it probably does happen on rare occasions.

This was what I was thinking as well...

Funny how the law thats suppose to work "for" you, works "against" you in certain situations...

[Braden]

I think effective ORAL notice should be a direct reading out loud of 30.06 addressed to US.

THAT would be funny.

In English AND Spanish.

[gigag04]

In English AND Spanish.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone mail your representative.

[Tom]

if you ignore that warning and attempt to rely upon the failure of the property owner to say “even CHL holders can’t bring guns in here� or something to that effect. Be safe; if someone tells you no guns, then don’t go in. I have never heard of anyone being given a verbal warning, but it probably does happen on rare occasions.

Regards,
Chas.

Charles,

What is the legal definition of the "property owner"? Does this
apply to the real estate, or to the business? It could get messy.

Regards,

Tom

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is no statutory definition of "property owner," at least in this Chp. 30 of the Penal Code. Since it is not specifically defined, it carries the same definition as "commonly used" in conversation. It would include the owner of the real estate and/or the owner of the business, if the property is leased by the business owner.

Also, 30.06 refers not only to the property owner, but also to "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner." Since any employee or security guard would have "apparent authority," virtually anyone working for the business can give verbal notice. Who has “apparent authority� will be judged by the “reasonable person� standard, not what any particular defendant believed. It would not work to argue that you didn't believe a janitor had the authority to say guns can't be brought into the building. An owner could easily instruct every one of his/her employees to tell people that, if they see or suspect a gun.

Regards,
Chas.

[Suckhow]

wait, wait, wait.. Isn't Seaworld an amusements park , and therefore subject to the same restrictions as sporting events, schools, 51% places, etc?

[Braden]

Amusement parks must be posted with the 30.06 sign....just like churches, hospitals and nursing homes....if they don't want CHL folks on the premises.

[HighVelocity]

I am resurrecting this thread because next weekend my family and friends are taking a trip to Sea World. Has anyone been there since last July and have an update on the signage or lack of?

-Gary

[AggieMM]

I was there in mid March, and did not see an obvious 30.06, but I wasn't carrying so my visual search probably wasn't as thorough as normal. They were only searching bags, and there were no metal detectors.

Ryan

[barres]

I think effective ORAL notice should be a direct reading out loud of 30.06 addressed to US.

THAT would be funny.

In English AND Spanish.

And from memory, of course! (I mean if they had it in writing, they'd just hand it to you as written notice, right?)