TexasCHLforum.com

AFCop wrote:

jmra wrote:

CWOOD wrote:

TxSigp229 wrote:If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted.

Not saying I dont agree with you BUT (devil's advocate) what binding case law do you have to support that statement? I ask that only becuase since the Legislature left it "open" we must rely on the application of the statute in case law and to my knowledge there has been no significant ruling. There are also respected advocates of gun rights (Charles for one if I am not mistakem) who feel the wrong challenge at the wrong time could be disastrous for us.

From what I can tell there is very little case law to draw from. I think until there is, common sense has to prevail. The code states that the sign must be placed in a "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". If I am entering an individual store through its own entrance and the entrance is not posted and there is no sign within the store then the requirement of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public" simply has not been met. I would be much more comfortable entering this store than I would be a store with a sign that has the wrong wording or wrong sized sign.

I think at some point you simply have to do your research and go with what you believe to be the most educated decision you can make. My approach has been simple, if I am carrying and I see a sign that is anything close to being right I don't go past it. The hospital where my wife works recently correctly posted the main entrance. There are other entrances that are not posted. I would not enter through the non-posted doors while carrying. I believe this is different than the mall example because the non-posted entrances at the hospital do not lead to different entities as is the case with the mall.

I think you could look at any law and create situations that will make you ask questions - in the end it turns into risk management. If something is or appears to be a grey area then you have to determine the level of risk to you and if you are comfortable with that level of risk. Many have done this with the issue of drinking alcohol while carrying. Some consider the risk level acceptable others do not. Some will say that the risk level is too high to enter an individual store when the front entrance to the mall is posted and others will say it is too low to worry about.

When asked similar questions my instructor would repeat the applicable section of the code, then he would say "I carry 24/7".

AFCop wrote:

jmra wrote:

CWOOD wrote:

TxSigp229 wrote:If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted.

Not saying I dont agree with you BUT (devil's advocate) what binding case law do you have to support that statement? I ask that only becuase since the Legislature left it "open" we must rely on the application of the statute in case law and to my knowledge there has been no significant ruling. There are also respected advocates of gun rights (Charles for one if I am not mistakem) who feel the wrong challenge at the wrong time could be disastrous for us.

which statement are you asking a out? I made a couple in that quote.

RPB wrote:Looks pretty simple ...
If you are licensed under Art. 4413(29ee), TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES , then don't carry in there, the sign prohibits it !!!
I personally was licensed under CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE, so I'm ok.
However, you were given verbal notice now so ...

Does a gf telling you that her boss said he does not want employees or clients (of which he is neither) ccing in the building constitute verbal notice? Not saying that he should carry, but I don't see how this meets the legal requirements for verbal notice.

Reply to cwood;

I would like to clarify some of the statements I made. It was my understanding that the question was related to what is legal and what is not legal. A sign posted in an employee break room with four walls and a door could not possibly meet even the intent of the law much less the actual requirements of the law for the general public and therefore can not apply to the general public outside the break room. I do believe that the law would apply in the break room to whoever entered the break room, this is why I stated, after becoming aware of the sign in the break room, I would not enter the break room armed. I understand that the wording is wrong, however, if the sign was posted at the entrance or in plain view upon entering the building (even with incorrect wording/sizing) I would leave immediately.

On the issue of a mall posting a single sign at one entrance - I never suggested that I would (or anyone should) simply find another entrance to the mall area and claim that they had not been notified. What I stated (or at least tried to convey) is that if individual stores had other entrances and those stores were not posted (either at the entrance or within the store itself) then there is no reason/legal obligation to believe that the sign in the common mall area applies to each individual store.

On the issue of only needing to be notified once, are you suggesting that if on Monday the main entrance is posted (I have been notified along with thousands of others) and I return on Tuesday and find that the sign has been removed that I can not carry in the mall because I was notified on Monday? This would mean that even though the mall was no longer posted that thousands of visitors to the mall would never be able to carry in the mall because they had already been notified once. That is not even logical. I would agree however that if you were given oral notice by someone in authority that you should not carry until you have been given permission to do so by the same person or one in a position of higher authority.

My SOP is very simple. If it is obvious that someone has at least made an attempt to comply with 30.06 (even if they did not get it exactly right) I turn around and head the other direction (leave immediately). However, this is what I choose to do, not what I am legally bound to do. It all comes down to how much risk you are comfortable with. Most leo's are clueless as to the law related to CHL and the likely hood of being arrested in a posted area is probably not any higher than being arrested somewhere that you have every right to carry such as a church or an amusement park. That is why I asked the question about how many cases have been filed where a CHL has been charged with this type of violation. I would still be interested in that answer.

When I said "I respectfully disagree", I truly meant the "respectfully" part. I have no doubt that you are an excellent instructor. The problem is I know several excellent instructors and it does not seem that you can get those guys to agree on any of the grey areas. I remember reading a post recently where a guy attended a CHL class where two instructors lead the class. There were a number of areas where the two instructors disagreed in their interpretation of the law and the students were given opposing views. We can talk all day about what could happen if this happened and what could happen if that happened but the fact of the matter is that no one knows until it actually happens. I agree that we should all abide by the law. The problem is the law leaves a lot open to interpretation and even the experts on this forum differ in their interpretations. Who are we to believe?

When dealing with the grey areas for me it comes down to this - 99% of the time I can completely avoid situations that place me in the grey zone. But, for the 1% that I can not avoid the grey area I am going to do what it takes to protect myself and my family.

That being said, respectfully, I don't consider the area outside the "break room" or an individual store at a mall with its own entrance (without a 30.06 sign in the store) a grey area.

To the OP,

I would have a hard time leaving my weapon in the car if the area was that bad - not only out of concern that someone might steal the weapon but for what might happen to me between the car and the building. In fact if the area is that bad, I might have a great deal of concern about my gf working there at all. Best wishes to you and hope you can get the sign taken down.

jmra out.

CWOOD wrote:

TxSigp229 wrote:Ok, I know that the 30.06 signs must be posted at the entrance of buildings for them to be legit.

What if they're only posted in the staff break room on the staff bulletin board? - No, I don't work there but my g/f does.

I know the sign is there. Should I ignore it or what since its not properly posted? There are no 30.06 signs at either of the two entrances to the business.

First of all, you are slightly mistaken about the location of the posting of the sign. It DOES NOT have to be at the entrance. It has to be posted in a "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also remember that 30.06 notification doesn not have to be done with a sign. It can be done orally, with no specific wording, it can be done in writing with a card or other document. This must have the specific wording but Spanish is not required. Notification can also be done with the sign with block letters 1" tall, contrasting colors, specific wording in English and Spanish and a location as noted above.

The 30.06 statute refers to coming into a location after you receive notice OR after having received notice that you failed to depart immediately. Both are violations.

From your comments, it would appear that you have already received notice. You already know about the sign and its location. It is not required that you be notified on each and every visit. If this is the case, you cannot now enter there while armed. This would be similar to someone going to a shopping mall and seeing a 30.06 sign at one entrance and then later finding and going through another entance that did not have the sign and then claiming that they did not receive proper notice. It that case they DID receive notice but tried to circumvent the restriction.

In summary, regrdless of the location of the sign, if you have already seen the sign, you cannot carry without being in violation. If the sign is not posted at the entrance, and you have not seen it before, but you later go to the lounge where it IS posted and you see it, you have not been in violation until you do see it and then fail to leave immediately. Ignoe it at your peril.

I hope this helps clarify the matter for your. Good Luck

I respectfully disagree. If the sign is only posted in the staff breakroom then the sign is only intended for staff. The regs say that the sign must be posted in a "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". In this case it is not visible to the public at all. As long as he does not enter the staff breakroom and has not been told orally by someone in authority that he can not carry in other parts of the building then he is not in violation. My recommendation would be stay out of the breakroom.

I also disagree about the mall. If a sign is only placed in one area of the mall the assumption could easily be made that the sign applies to a particular store and not the entire mall. If you can enter individual stores without entering the "mall" area then those individual stores would have to be posted in order for it to be a violation. Posting at one entrance of a mall that has multiple entrances in no way meets the qualification of "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". Also have issue with the idea that I do not have to be notified more than once. If I enter a mall and see a sign posted I have been notified. However the sign could be removed the next day. If I only had to be notified once then I could not ever carry in the building again because I had already been notified even though the building was no longer posted. The fact of the matter is the burden of proper notification and the burden of proving that a person recieved proper notification falls on the "poster". How many cases have there actually been where your average chl holder has been charged with this type of violation?