TexasCHLforum.com

I don' t think it's a legal sign. it's not contrasting, and I don't believe the letters are large enough. (I can't tell from the photo)

When was this taken? I didn't see this when I went.

Ah-HA!

It finally penetrates my skull.

Thanks for the clarification.

So basically, if I understand, it goes something like this:

"The law says that govt. owned entities cannot restrict CHL's soley based on them carrying a legally concealed weapon, but there is no penalty to them if they decide to break this law. The CHL has more to lose than the govt. entity in this case."

Have I pretty much got it right?

Sounds like something that needs to change.

Ok, Help me understand this.

30.05 says:

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.

Does the "and" mean what I think it does? So you have to have a CHL *AND* Be a peace officer?

Or does the "and" really mean "or"?

So my reading of this section of 30.05 and 30.06 seems to technically bar someone from being charged with tresspass if they have a CHL, and the only reason they are being barred from a property is having a concealed handgun. It seems to take 30.05 completely out of the picture, and apply 30.06 if the only reason for the "tresspass" is because the actor had a concealed handgun carried under the auspices of CHL.

Now then, 30.06 goes and says:

(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.

to my non-lawyer eyes, this means 30.06 cannot be applied to a governmentally owned or leased property as long as that property doesnt meet the requirements of 46.03 or 46.035.

Now I realize that reality and the law tend to diverge, but what's the law that says that someone can restrict someone from entering a government owned property if the only reason for restriction is the carrying of a concealed handgun?

Is "We just didn't want him here!" good enough?, or in my (poorly executed) example, would they just remove you for disorderly conduct (or whatever the equivalent is)?

JohnKSa wrote:I think for the purpose of 30-06 a person leasing or renting the property is still the owner. E.g. if I were to lease a building from the city and open a business, I could post 30-06 signs that would be legally enforceable. The business and the facility are mine for all practical and legal purposes as long as I don't violate the lease contract.

Actually, I think someone said exactly the opposite (and it might have been in here somewhere)
that the leasee cannot impose restrictions that the owner could not have.

edit: I won't even bother.

As they say, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics: it doesn't matter if you win, you're still, err, you know.

cyphur wrote:Or, just don't carry into the museum.

I don't go places that don't let me carrying, excepting airports really.

My lady and I wanted to go see the Van Gogh: Sheaves of Wheat exhibit at Dallas Museum of Art today.

No signs posted anywhere. (The 30.06 signs that have been reported there in the past were not evident)

So we go to enter. At the door, museum personel attempt to search my lady and I. They want to look in her purse, and they want to pat me down. I figure, "what the heck, this could be interesting" so I allow it. Of course, they find a "bulge."

"Sir, what is that?"

I figure i'll be a pain, as I'm already annoyed, and ready to walk out the door anyway. So is she; she is denying them access to her purse.
"I cannot inform you as it might violate Texas law."
"ARE YOU CARRYING A WEAPON!!!???"
"Sir. As I said, I cannot inform you as it might violate Texas law."
"WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE, WE DON'T ALLOW WEAPONS IN HERE!"

So we left. After that, I had no willingness to spend $32 on this place, nor do I wish to return.

So beware: If you go to the Dallas museum of art, you might get hassled for a search.