TexasCHLforum.com

rgraham541 wrote:I know it is posted here elsewhere but just to confirm: San Antonio International airport (Terminal 2) has a very legal 30.06 notice posted at all the main entrances coming from the parking lot and well outside the secure area of the airport. Did a little research and the San Antonio airport web site clearly indicates the airport is OWNED and OPERATED by the city of San Antonio.

KBCraig wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Just sent to the Texarkana Parks & Recreation manager:

And his response:

Kevin,
Thanks for you email and information. I will have to check this
with the City Attorney's office. We will have it removed after
discussing the information you sent me. Thanks again for the heads up.

KBCraig wrote:Just sent to the Texarkana Parks & Recreation manager:

cpix wrote:SB 1709 Disarming of CHL holder within Secure Area of Police or Sheriff Department’s Office.

cpix wrote:Twice now I have had to visit the Gulfton Storefront (HPD station) and they have had a 30.06 sign in the window. I wait outside and talk to them through the doorway and tell them I am armed and they always say to come on in. I mentioned to one of the officers that the sign was not legal and she said "Yes, we know" but it is still there. Am I correct that it should not be there?

keb wrote:I started looking at this thread due to a 30.06 sign showing up at my son's high school (Clear Brook in SE Houston), which I think is totally asinine. But reading this list, I think I may not understand the intent of the 30.06 law. Reading the statute, it says that any public facility may post a 30.06 sign if they wish to exclude CHL holders from carrying on their premises. Is there an exclusion to Government entities? Does the 30.06 only apply to privately owned property?

Liberty wrote:It looks like there is the makings here for a good movie.

S&W6946 wrote:I returned to Presbyterian Hospital of Greenville today to visit my mother again. I paid particular attention to their signs. They are posted on the glass of the front doors. "State Law prohibits Handguns on these premises"; below that "No Handguns"; below that the ghostbusters sign. Its all repeated in Spanish.

To my understanding these are not 30.06 compliant, so I carried. Was I wrong?

switch wrote:I do not like to call the 30.06 signs on municipal buildings 'illegal', I prefer to call them unenforceable.

Arock wrote:S&W you are correct. However in the Rockwall County Government Building, County Judge Bill Bell and County Court At Law Judge David Rakow are both vehemently opposed to civilians having the right to concealed carry as is local District Attorney Ray Sumrow who is so paranoid he won't even allow his photograph be posted on the official Rockwall County website.

I also noticed the signs posted at the Government Center are NOT correct 30.06 signage. I am, however, not about to tell them. The uniformed officer at the door that forces everyone entering the building go through a metal detector is of the absolute belief that NOONE except LEO's can enter the building with a firearm and he is obstinate in his error.

I am waiting for someone to "violate" the unlawful ban. I have talked with several local defense attorneys about the issue and they are in agreement it will make one of them a good case. I will not be the defendant however.

ShootNMove wrote:

JohnKSa wrote:Right--the part about the card or document applies to something delivered in some manner directly to the person being notified.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was confused. So if a restaurant has a document posted on their window that meets only 1/3 requirements listed under (B), then it's an incorrect posting and I can carry inside legally?

ShootNMove wrote:So then they don't have to be in Spanish, 1" block letters or posted in a conspicuous location as long as it meets the requirements in (A)?

That answers my question. Thanks for your i/p.

ShootNMove wrote:I'm just curious because there is a rather ambiguous "OR" in the statute:

Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
_(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; OR
_(B) a sign posted on the property that:
___(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
___(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
___(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this 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.

That "or" leads me to believe that a prosecutor could justify a non-compliant posting.

Does it mean a card, document OR sign?

--or--

A card/document with that language OR a sign that meets the following requirements? Do the (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to both (A) and (B), or just (B)?