TexasCHLforum.com

Gary:
I got confused too. I was thinking we were on the parking lot thread also. Oh well, I'll do better next time.

Regards,
Chas.

GrillKing wrote:I believe 30.05 has wording that specifically excludes 30.05 to used solely for use against carrying under CHL statutes.

You're right, but remember the scenario we are discussing; i.e. the pistol is locked in the trunk of the car. If, and that's a big if, you are not "carrying" pursuant to your CHL under that fact pattern, then the protection of 30.05(f) will not be a defense to prosecution.

This is one example why I personally would never agree that my CHL would be inapplicable to such a scenario.

Regards,
Chas.

txinvestigator wrote:I am an instructor and don't recall a wrong answer on the key. I will check this week.

I took my renewal course in 2002, so it may have been corrected. If I remember correctly, the initial course I took in 1996 taught that deadly force could only be used to defend your life, or someone else. That an excellent policy, but it was an incorrect statement of Texas law.

Regards,
Chas.

jimlongley wrote:According to our CHL instructor that sign is as legal as the 30.06 sign, which doesn't make sense to me, but that was the correct answer according to the score sheet and no amount of arguement was going to change it.

Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the first time the DPS mandated course was wrong on the law. That sign is not “as legal" as a proper 30.06 sign. (Also, it's not in English and Spanish, which is also required.) I vaguely recall an "answer" on the exam that was clearly wrong, but as you say, nothing was going to convince anyone.

Regards,
Chas.

Sgtbrod:
First, welcome to TexasCHLforum!

As to the sign, it's not Tx. Penal Code Section 30.06 compliant, so it should not be enforceable. Section 30.06 requires the express language set forth in the Code, as shown in subpart (3):

(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.

I say it "should" be unenforceable because some prosecutors think that close is good enough. This is sometimes true, but not when the statute states the language must be identical that that expressly set forth in quotation marks.

A few years ago, a handful of hospitals in the Houston area started posting "no-gun" signs, some of which came close to the required language. Before long-time Harris County District Attorney Johnny Holmes retired, he was interviewed on Ch. 11 news about those signs. He candidly and forcefully stated that, if the exact language is not used, his office would not accept any trespass charges against a CHL, because the signs were not enforceable. (Holmes was an ardent opponent of CHL who later admitted he was wrong and became just as ardent in his support of CHL holders.)

I'm an attorney and if I were faced with such a sign, I would chuckle to myself and go about my business. But, far be it from me to offer legal advice to non-clients over the Internet.

Regards,
Chas.