TexasCHLforum.com

I've read up on your background and I agree with you 100% on the above explanation. I was just pointing out that one could be taken to jail under 30.05 on private property. A change in the wording to include the Case Law findings may need to be addressed. In the situation you have given this would prevent the arrest and save everyone involved time, money and stress. As I said I don’t ever see myself doing this unless I am left no other option. As far as on government property, this should never happen unless it is a place prohibited. Also don't get me wrong, I am very pro CHL. I just do not agree with some of the wording and/or restrictions imposed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jyatesmp wrote:Where does it say "30.05 does not apply to a CHL, if the only reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL is armed."?

It's called the doctrine of presumptive repeal. Also, in statutes, "the specific controls over the general." When TPC §30.06 was enacted, it provides the only means by which a CHL can be prosecuted for criminal trespass, if the reason they were excluded was the fact that they were armed..

Please show me where it says this. (Give me a Texas State Law link, statute or something)

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN states
e) It is an exception to the application of this section (not any other section) that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Nothing about private property. This is what I am getting at. No where in 30.06 or 30.05 does it say you are exempt from being prosecuted for criminal trespass if you hold a CHL. On government property yes, not private property. 30.05 states it is a defense to prosecution not an exemption.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You are a peace officer and are you telling us you have never heard this either in the academy or any of your 40 in-service courses?

The section you referenced (§30.05(i)) was added so that no peace officer could ever be excluded from any property in the state, even private property, even when they are off duty. (What an absurd law!)

Chas.

Edited to add: I left out fatal conflicts between statutes. If two statutes are in conflict, the later passed statues controls.

I did forget about this on conflicting statutes however the two are not conflicting. 30.06 is specifically giving a CHL holder on government property an exemption and 30.05 is specifically talking about anyone on any property (other than government property) and specifically making it a defense to prosecution for a CHL holder.

Please don't get me wrong. I agree with you and I would not take someone to jail for this. I am not trying to say a LEO is above anyone or should be. I am just pointing out what the two statutes say and feel the wording in 30.05 or 30.06 should include an exemption if the reason for being criminally trespassed is the fact you have a CHL and are armed. As of now it is a defense to prosecution and not an exemption. Still could go to court on 30.05, and in the 30.06 statute you are not going to court over it.

Sorry I dug up old post. I'm just trying to dive in and post my $.02 worth. I am not new to forums, but have never really paid attention on the dates (and never have had my hand slapped because of it). I will try to watch that more on this forum and thank you for pointing that out to me.

Laws are very hard to read and understand. Most people won’t even read the whole thing and that just makes matters worse. What I am bringing up is that I think we need to see if we can look at changing the wording in 30.05 as it is currently written it can prohibit a CHL holder. I think the officer would be immune from civil liability because a defense to prosecution is up for a judge and jury to sort out (unlike 30.06 that states 30.06 can not be used to exclude armed CHL's)... Not the officer on the street. If you were arrested under 30.06 the officer and agency would have some questions to answer. As it reads now that is not the case with 30.05.

Chas keeps referring back to the 30.06 law and not the wording in the 30.05. That is what I am questioning. Like I said he is correct under 30.06, but you can not use a 30.06 exemption to defend the 30.05 statute. One is a criminal trespass charge, the other trespass by holder of license to carry concealed handgun charge. You can not use one to defend the other.

*** edit*** You can not use the exemption under 30.06 to defend yourself if you are charged under 30.05 (a defense to prosecution).

So just because it is old I can not commit on it? In that case the old post should be locked out or something. What was irrelevant or incorrect about what I posted? I just stated facts. Was it necessary to point out that that building had Police inside? No, but it is a fact it does. What is wrong with my post in the old rifle thread? No one else answered the question so I did. Am I late to the party yes, but at least I made an effort to answer it. I am happy I have a new gun on the way and wanted to share it with others.

I understand Chas is as close to a horse as many can get (you know what I'm saying). That is why I asked him what I did. One statute applies only CHL holders (30.06), the other (30.05) applies to any person (including CHL holders). I would assume if they did not want the 30.05 statute to be able to prevent a CHL holder they would have made it an exemption and not a defense to prosecution. There is a reason it is written the way it is.

Don’t like what I have to say or question, please don’t read or reply to my post. I’m not trying to be rude, but I do not understand how you think its right to tell someone what they can or can not post.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jyatesmp wrote:

mr fixit wrote:City of Mesquite TX, City Hall 1515 N. Galloway is posted with a 30.06 sign. The 30.06 sign was put up after the city ordinance barring concealed carry was struck down. There is no Police in this building.

Fire Marshals are in 1515 N. Galloway and are Law Enforcement Officers under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 2.12.

The only areas statutorily off-limits to armed CHL's are "jails." (Not every room with bars is a jail, most are holding cells so the agency doesn't have to meet jail standards.)

Even "Law Enforcement Facilities" are not off-limits. If a police dept. or sheriff's dept. (no other agencies) has a building that meets the requirements of Tex. Gov't Code 411.207(c) & (d), then a CHL can be disarmed while in the secure portion of the building. A CHL cannot be denied entrance and they cannot be required to leave the building to secure their weapon in their car.

The definition of a "law enforcement facility" is very narrow and strict compliance is required. Among the requirements are lock boxes for the CHL's gun and posting of required signage. Importantly, if there is one single person working in the building who is not employed by that police dept. or sheriff's dept., then the building is not a "law enforcement facility." This last requirement keeps many/most police and sheriff dept. building from qualifying, especially for small agencies. For example, many agencies have an office for "emergency management" in the building, or at least "emergency management" personnel working in the building. Since these folks aren't employed by the agency and aren't working solely on that agency's activities, the building is not a "law enforcement facility."

We made sure the definition was very narrow to keep it from being abused.

Chas.

I was just pointing out that there were Peace Officers in the building. Not that it made the sign valid.

Keith B wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jyatesmp wrote:Yes you can get arrested for it.

Yes you can go to jail for it.

You bring up your Defense to Prosecution up in a Court of Law and a judge or jury decides if you were wrong or not.

The sign is still invalid. And, if arrested and charged, then once you beat the rap, you go back after them for false arrest.

BTW, 30.05 does not apply to a CHL holder, only 30.06.

The way it reads is 30.05 applies to anyone entering property not owned by that person and 30.06 applies to only CHL holders.
"Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if "
"Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if "

JKTex wrote:

jyatesmp wrote:

dws1117 wrote:Went on vacation

Yes you can get arrested for it.

Please yell me you're not going to continue to reply (even inaccurately) to every post going back 7 years in this thread. There are 35 pages, and you're only on page 2, both from 2005 so far!!

So sorry. I am new to the forum and am just now reading post from 7 years back. It is not inaccurately. We are talking about two different statutes. They read differently and what it says in one statute does not apply to the other in this case. As the sign we are talking about is a 30.05 statute. Nothing in 30.05 applies to 30.06, and nothing in 30.06 applies to 30.05 unless the statute says they do.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jyatesmp wrote:Yes you can get arrested for it.

Yes you can go to jail for it.

You bring up your Defense to Prosecution up in a Court of Law and a judge or jury decides if you were wrong or not.

Yes, you can get arrested and the officer and his/her agency can get sued under §1983. An officer is immune from civil liability only for a "good faith arrest." However, an officer cannot make a "good faith arrest" for that which is not illegal. As pointed out by Keith, TPC §30.05 doesn't apply to a CHL, if the only reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL is armed. This is not a defense to prosecution, it's the black letter law, so a good faith arrest cannot be made under those circumstances.

TPC §30.06(e) expressly states that governmental agencies cannot use TPC §30.06 to exclude armed CHL's, so this too is not a defense to prosecution. Again a good faith arrest cannot be made under these circumstances.

Chas.

Where does it say "30.05 doesn't apply to a CHL, if the only reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL is armed."?

This is what 30.05 says about not applying, "(i) This section does not apply if:(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.(j) Repealed by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1138, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2009."

Only referring to Peace Officers, not a CHL holder.

The 30.05 section referring to CHL holder states, "(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

“Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.”

So yes you can go to be arrested and go to jail. It is up to the defense to present a defense to procession at trial, where the charge can then be dismissed.



The sign in question refers to a 30.05 sign not a 30.06 sign. Yes "TPC §30.06(e) expressly states that governmental agencies cannot use TPC §30.06 to exclude armed CHL's". I see nothing in 30.05 preventing a governmental agencies from using a 30.05 sign to do this. (Maybe the wording needs to be addressed)

Please don't get me wrong, I do not agree with it either, but that is what the black and white law reads. A lot of laws are on a thin line or just seem to out right contradict one another.

dws1117 wrote:Went on vacation with the family to our land outside of Nacogdoches. When we tried to stop at the visitor center I saw a no CHL sign by thier door. This same sign was also on the fire station and city hall. All three are on the same block.

The sign said "No Concealed Handguns" in both English and Spanish. Underneath that it was written Texas Penal Code 30.05 Criminal Trespass. It was also a very small sign.

Is this a legal sign? I thought that statute was 30.06.

Here are some pics.







The sign at City Hall

30.05 is the Criminal Trespass law. They are referring to the
(a)(1)- (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden;,
(b)(1)(2)(A)(C)- (b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;,

(d)2)- An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.,

(f)(1)(2) - (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

and I point out the (g)(1)(2)- (g) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon.

sections (full law below).

§ 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an
offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an
aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or
he enters or remains in a building of another without effective
consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or
someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously
designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at
the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the
attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;
(D) the placement of identifying purple paint
marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks
are:
(i) vertical lines of not less than eight
inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(ii) placed so that the bottom of the mark
is not less than three feet from the ground or more than five feet
from the ground; and
(iii) placed at locations that are readily
visible to any person approaching the property and no more than:
(a) 100 feet apart on forest land; or
(b) 1,000 feet apart on land other
than forest land; or
(E) the visible presence on the property of a
crop grown for human consumption that is under cultivation, in the
process of being harvested, or marketable if harvested at the time
of entry.
(3) "Shelter center" has the meaning assigned by
Section 51.002, Human Resources Code.
(4) "Forest land" means land on which the trees are
potentially valuable for timber products.
(5) "Agricultural land" has the meaning assigned by
Section 75.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(6) "Superfund site" means a facility that:
(A) is on the National Priorities List
established under Section 105 of the federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. Section 9605); or
(B) is listed on the state registry established
under Section 361.181, Health and Safety Code.
(7) "Critical infrastructure facility" means one of
the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical
barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders:
(A) a chemical manufacturing facility;
(B) a refinery;
(C) an electrical power generating facility,
substation, switching station, electrical control center, or
electrical transmission or distribution facility;
(D) a water intake structure, water treatment
facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(E) a natural gas transmission compressor
station;
(F) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage
facility;
(G) a telecommunications central switching
office;
(H) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking
terminal, or other freight transportation facility;
(I) a gas processing plant, including a plant
used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;
or
(J) a transmission facility used by a federally
licensed radio or television station.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor at the time of the offense was a fire fighter or emergency
medical services personnel, as that term is defined by Section
773.003, Health and Safety Code, acting in the lawful discharge of
an official duty under exigent circumstances.
(d) An offense under Subsection (e) is a Class C misdemeanor
unless it is committed in a habitation or unless the actor carries a
deadly weapon on or about the actor's person during the commission
of the offense, in which event it is a Class A misdemeanor. An
offense under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that
the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if:
(1) the offense is committed:
(A) in a habitation or a shelter center;
(B) on a Superfund site; or
(C) on or in a critical infrastructure facility;
or
(2) the actor carries a deadly weapon on or about his
person during the commission of the offense.
(e) A person commits an offense if without express consent
or if without authorization provided by any law, whether in writing
or other form, the person:
(1) enters or remains on agricultural land of another;
(2) is on the agricultural land and within 100 feet of
the boundary of the land when apprehended; and
(3) had notice that the entry was forbidden or
received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.

Text of subsec. (g) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1093.
(g) This section does not apply if:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other
weapon was forbidden; and
(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace
officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized
state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of
Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or
special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an
official duty while carrying the weapon.

Text of subsec. (g) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1337.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the actor entered a railroad switching yard or any part of a
railroad switching yard and was at that time an employee or a
representative of employees exercising a right under the Railway
Labor Act (45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq.).

Text of subsec. (h) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1093.
(h) For purposes of Subsection (g), "recognized state"
means another state with which the attorney general of this state,
with the approval of the governor of this state, negotiated an
agreement after determining that the other state:
(1) has firearm proficiency requirements for peace
officers; and
(2) fully recognizes the right of peace officers
commissioned in this state to carry weapons in the other state.

Text of subsec. (h) as added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1337.
(h) At the punishment stage of a trial in which the attorney
representing the state seeks the increase in punishment provided by
Subsection (d)(1)(C), the defendant may raise the issue as to
whether the defendant entered or remained on or in a critical
infrastructure facility as part of a peaceful or lawful assembly,
including an attempt to exercise rights guaranteed by state or
federal labor laws. If the defendant proves the issue in the
affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the increase in
punishment provided by Subsection (d)(1)(C) does not apply.


Yes you can get arrested for it.

Yes you can go to jail for it.

You bring up your Defense to Prosecution up in a Court of Law and a judge or jury decides if you were wrong or not.

mr fixit wrote:City of Mesquite TX, City Hall 1515 N. Galloway is posted with a 30.06 sign. The 30.06 sign was put up after the city ordinance barring concealed carry was struck down. There is no Police in this building.

Fire Marshals are in 1515 N. Galloway and are Law Enforcement Officers under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 2.12.