TexasCHLforum.com

78641 wrote:

bauerdj wrote:I enter on an almost daily basis a nursing home which has the following sign "Carry of a concealed hangun on these premisis is prohibited under state law" Sign also has the same verbage in spanish. I have been ignoring it under the assumption that it was psted to comply with previous law and has been left up out of ignorance of the changes in the law or neglect.

Dave B.

I could be wrong but I thought a nursing home was one of the places you [/i]cannot legally carry without the express permission of the owner/administrator. If I remember correctly, they don't need to post anything.

Texas Penal Code
§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;


(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

rb4browns wrote:

HadEmAll wrote:I took my mother to a medical procedure the other day. The facility had 2 entrances to the same lobby, doors facing each other across a sidewalk. Using one would have your back directly to the other. The doors themselves were about 20 feet apart.

One set of doors had the proper configuration of the 30.06 sign, the other did not. It was definitely possible to enter the non-signed door without even looking at the other, which I did after wiping the sight of the other from my mind.

How many fellow CHLers wink at knowlingly disregarding legal 30.06 signs yet rail against illegal immigrants simply because they, "broke the law" to get to America..

Photoman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Well he can refuse service. But the peace officer can ignore ANY signs legally.

Yes, this is relatively new. If I recall correctly, this change passed in 2005. I also think it's absurd!! There is no justification rendering private property owners incapable of excluding armed off duty LEO's from their non-commercial property. (I make a distinction between commercial and non-commercial property.)

This provision is also a great response to those who would argue that TSRA's parking commercial lot bill somehow violates private property rights.

Chas.

In my mind, once the private property owner permits public (commercial) access to his property, he relinquishes certain "rights" to refuse. The "right" to ban legally carried firearms, by police or CHL, is one that the property owner loses (if he ever had it to begin with - one could argue that self-defense is a natural right, inalienable and not to be suppressed by any man).

rb4browns wrote:

boomerang wrote:A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

Legally does he? I think that has been addressed. Morally I say yes - if a cop is on his property only to eat lunch and has no other official reason to be there than I think the property owner should have the right to refuse service.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

boomerang wrote:A gunbuster sign has the same meaning for me as it does for a Texas Peace Officer.

Does a Texas Peace Officer violate the rights of a business owner if, while armed, he walks past a gunbuster sticker on a restaurant door to eat lunch?

Doesn't apply to a peace officer, from PC30.05:

(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."

I wonder if it was ever required for a commissioned peace officer in this state to disarm before going in to eat at a business that restricts the carrying of a firearm in their "private" establishment...

I do not see "lunch" as "official duty"...

HankB wrote:Anyone who knows they have to post a "no guns" sign to keep CHL-ers out also knows (or ought to know!) to know what the requirements are for a valid sign.

Molon_labe wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Molon_labe wrote: Why should a CHL carrier be so scrutinized yet people slap up the GhostBusters no gun signs and immediately its DA LAW?

Ghostbuster and "No Guns" signs are not the law.

If you're on someone else's private property, you can expect to be scrutinized, and to have your behavior scrutinized, whether you're carrying a gun or not.

What I am saying is a hypothetical

You walk into a burgershack with a ghostbuster no gun on the door..ignoring it, yet you get outted by a massive anti-gunner manager that slapped that thing on the door and the police are called...who is more in the wrong..the manager who DOESN'T own the property or you for ignoring the false no guns sign??

Snake Doctor wrote:I read this forum quite a bit before joining, and I'd say this is the first time I DISagree with txinvestigator. If I have to jump through hoops and pay an arm/leg just to exercise my right to carry, you had better believe I expect the anti-CHL establishments to have to do the same with regard to 30.06 compliance. I expect the law to judge them in the same manner they would judge me.

If I stuck a cardboard sign up in your neighborhood that read "SPEED LIMIT 23" in big pink letters, would you obey it?

atxgun wrote: You get in front of the judge, he asks if you saw their sign. You respond along the lines "Yeah I saw their sign, knew what their intentions were and they didn't want me carrying on their property. however I also noticed the sign was a couple inches too small so I flat out ignored it."

]