TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995

WildBill wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:

a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and (2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a
It seems like anyone who could withhold consent by acting with "apparent authority" of the owner could also grant it. Turn it around...If there was no sign, could the security guard still give you oral notice that carry was prohibited? Yes. So it seems clear that he could grant it.

ETA: But I wouldn't want to be....dah...dah...dahh... The TEST CASE...
I wouldn't trust the oral notification of a security guard or other employee if the location was posted.
If so, I would ask them to remove the sign. If they don't have the authority to do that, I would pass.
I could see that if he were challenged or overruled by a superior, he might have a sudden loss of memory.
Or "I didn't say that. I said if it were up to me he could carry" ... etc.
Do you think the guard would sign a written statement that gives the person the authority to carry past the sign?
I really doubt it.

Understandable. The same goes the other way, of course. It would be hard to prove effective notice either way absent an audio recording of some type. I'll stop there so as to not run afoul of forum rules.

Speaking solely of the law, I think you can get effective notice to carry in a 30.06 posted location from someone with apparent authority.

Soccerdad1995

WildBill wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
WildBill wrote:I don't know if I agree that a security guard telling you that you can carry past the sign voids the effective notice.
I don't believe it does, but I am not certain.
I'm curious about your rationale here. Are you saying that a uniformed security guard does not have apparent authority to give effective notice? If so, then who would?

We have generally discussed effective notice going the other way, but I don't think the law has a double standard on this point. Of course, IANAL, and I could well be mistaken.
I am saying that a security guard would have authority to give effective notice.
I don't know that he can authorize a person to disregard a compliant posted 30.06 sign.

Effective notice by someone with apparent authority overrides signage. I believe that this works either way. So the only real question is whether a uniformed security guard has apparent authority. Can you point to something in the statutes that defines a different level of authority needed if there is a compliant sign at the location?

And to your last point, the security guard wouldn't be authorizing a person to "disregard a compliant posted 30.06 sign" any more than a Whataburger employee is authorizing me to "disregard my RKBA" when he gives me effective notice that they don't allow OC. His effective notice trumps any signage, or lack thereof.

Soccerdad1995

WildBill wrote:I don't know if I agree that a security guard telling you that you can carry past the sign voids the effective notice.
I don't believe it does, but I am not certain.

I'm curious about your rationale here. Are you saying that a uniformed security guard does not have apparent authority to give effective notice? If so, then who would?

We have generally discussed effective notice going the other way, but I don't think the law has a double standard on this point. Of course, IANAL, and I could well be mistaken.

Soccerdad1995

WildBill wrote:
geoelectro wrote:I repair organs and digital keyboards and as such I go to a significant number of Churches. Since the OC law has been enacted, a large number of these Churches are posting both 30.06 and 30.07 signs at their entrances. So I have pretty much stopped carrying. I have had several discussions with church personnel and the guards. It seems in several cases, they had people open carrying in their church and decided to put up the signs. In most cases though, it was done to stop OC but either due to misinformation or even a push from the sign company, they got both.

I have offered that the signs only stop the good guys etc. etc. etc. but it seems they are where they are with no incentive to change. They allow members to carry and larger churches have guards or even police protection. An armed guard even told me to just carry on as long as it's concealed! Then yesterday I see a comment on FB concerning the Orlando shooting where people are saying if they had laws like in Texas and people had been armed, fewer people would have died. I mentioned that carrying past a 51% sign in Texas is not allowed. A response was that it's only a class C misdemeanor, indicating it's not that bad to do it.

I'm a little confused here, I was always under the impression carrying past any sign that legally prevented carrying was very bad and could lead to losing your license. Thoughts?

Geo
In this case the punishment for breaking the law is not relevant. Carrying past a properly posted sign is against the law and suggesting that people break the law is against forum rules.

The OP is talking about someone who posted on Facebook, not on this site. The exact response he reported also just said (incorrectly) that the penalty was not too severe for that particular crime. Advising someone about the penalty for an offense is not the same as recommending that they commit a crime, although it would be nice if the info being given out was actually correct.

To the OP, yes, definitely report that $10 you won at poker on your income taxes, stay at or just slightly below the speed limit at all times, stop behind the line at all red lights and stop signs, and whatever you do, never tear a tag off your mattress!!

Soccerdad1995

geoelectro wrote:I repair organs and digital keyboards and as such I go to a significant number of Churches. Since the OC law has been enacted, a large number of these Churches are posting both 30.06 and 30.07 signs at their entrances. So I have pretty much stopped carrying. I have had several discussions with church personnel and the guards. It seems in several cases, they had people open carrying in their church and decided to put up the signs. In most cases though, it was done to stop OC but either due to misinformation or even a push from the sign company, they got both.

I have offered that the signs only stop the good guys etc. etc. etc. but it seems they are where they are with no incentive to change. They allow members to carry and larger churches have guards or even police protection. An armed guard even told me to just carry on as long as it's concealed! Then yesterday I see a comment on FB concerning the Orlando shooting where people are saying if they had laws like in Texas and people had been armed, fewer people would have died. I mentioned that carrying past a 51% sign in Texas is not allowed. A response was that it's only a class C misdemeanor, indicating it's not that bad to do it.

I'm a little confused here, I was always under the impression carrying past any sign that legally prevented carrying was very bad and could lead to losing your license. Thoughts?

Geo

I'll start with the good news. Since a security officer at one of the churches told you that you could carry concealed, that effective notice overrides the sign and you can legally carry there. This works the same in reverse aas well (if a security guard tells you no CC where there are no signs, then you cannot carry there).

If you are caught carrying concealed in a location with valid 30.06 signage, then you could be subject to a fine of up to $200. I am not sure of the effect on your LTC, however. You could always get a Kel-Tec sub 2000 and keep it in your tool bag if you are worried about the Class C misdemeanor and still want to be armed. Since that is a rifle, it is not subject to the 30.06 restrictions, but it is still pretty easy to conceal in a decent sized bag.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: New church signs

Re: New church signs

Re: New church signs

Re: New church signs

Re: New church signs