TexasCHLforum.com

Rrash wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:
That underlined part is where they would be stuck. One of the communications described in 30.06 is verbal.

The problem, however, is that the penalty will only apply to signage that has been left up. It will not pose any penalty to anyone who gives verbal warning.

Rrash wrote:I understand verbal notice isn't enforceable, but there is nothing in SB273 that prohibits a gov't from attempting to prohibit lawful carry by giving verbal warnings. It simply says they can't post signs. If you are asked to leave and even regardless of whether or not you are breaking any laws, couldn't they claim you are trespassing? My point is that I could see some government owned properties trying to intimidate and abuse by giving a verbal warning, even calling police and disarming the CHL holder, threatening arrest, etc., whether lawful or not.

A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

Rrash wrote:Another scenario we could likely see from the guilty cities is to remove signage, but still verbally give notice. While it may not happen to concealed carriers unless going through a metal detector, I would think it will happen often to everyone that chooses to open carry. I'm not really sure if there is a way to defend against it. Charles, would this be something that might be addressed in 2017?