TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote:

JJVP wrote:
What kind of lawyer is your friend? Has he ever read the applicable statues (sic)? Is he a criminal lawyer? Heck, did he even pass the bar exam?

There is nothing inconsistent about THIS statue (sic). It is VERY clear.

You have your opinion, JJVP, as to what these statutes mean, and my source has made some suggestions which may merit some thought -- but certainly not unacceptable and insulting rudeness. If that is the way we are to discuss an important question here, I will now back out. I have not, and would never, tell you that your opinion is wrong.

After one last word... My source has indeed read the statutes. He practiced criminal law for many years. He was the valedictorian of his law school class at one of the finest law schools in the country. Before his retirement he served as a criminal trial court judge and subsequently as a judge on a appelloate criminal court.

BUT, I say again, so that we might end this discussion on the right note. He did not, repeat NOT, offer this forum his legal advice through me. He gave me a suggestion which I felt merited some thought, and I knew there were intelligent members of this forum who might share my interest in his thoughts.

Ignore that suggestion if you do not agree that it merits some thought, but in my opinion you are way out of line with your words from the gutter.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

Arguably, yes. The argument my friend gave me is that "actual notice," given by any means, with any words, verbal or written, is effective notice that you cannot remain in the premises with a concealed handgun. On the other hand, if you do not speak English, notice given in English, verbal or written, is arguably not "actual" notice. This is true even though you may have lawfully entered the premises.

Where this argument gets to be fun is if a noncompliant sign (a "Gunbuster") is posted on the door, saying, for example, "NO GUNS PERMITTED IN THE STORE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CHL." Since it is noncompliant, you may open the door and enter, but once you are in, haven't you already been given actual notice by the Gunbuster sign, therefore you have to turn around and leave, or, perish the thought, although it was lawful to enter, the fact that you did in fact enter, makes your presence unlawful?

Questions like this, guys and gals, is how lawyers make a living. And judges also make a living with questions like this, but judges can often decide undecideable questions so as to make the whole package make sense. Happens all the time when there are arguably inconsistent rules.

Whether my lawyer-friend's suggestion is right or wrong, and it is only that, a suggestion, at least we have people now reading the statutes and arriving at a conclusion, and not just parroting, for example, an instructor who may be as dumb as a post -- and I had one of them when I got my first CHL. All he did for 10 hours was tell us what a great shot he was, and then told us the answers to all the written questions.

Jim

PS: I would suggest that all hands take care not to skip over one very important word: Entry -- entry -- entry, etc. Is that not what the 30-06 compliant sign authorizes? And only that?

57Coastie wrote:A lawyer (who has a CHL) once suggested to me that perhaps this is not quite as clear as reading the above posts assume. That is, notice is notice, but a particular type of notice is necessary for a CHL holder to be guilty of criminal trespass. Or, no matter how you are given notice that you are not welcome, then you are not welcome, and you may be denied entrance. Criminal trespass comes into play if the notice is not compliant with 30.06.

Or, if will, nothing in the statutes says that absent notice compliant with 30.06 you are permitted, regardless of the wishes of the business, to carry concealed in the premises.

In sum, In our discussions of 30.06 we may often omit the element of criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is the issue, not the right to enter, once one receives actual notice, in any form, and it is incorrect to say "the sign is worded wrong, so we have the right to enter."

His point would suggest that the broad language used, quite innocently, with respect to 30.06 could result in one being successfully prosecuted for criminal trespass should, as an example, his carrying of a concealed handgun be detected, he is told to get out, and he refuses, on the basis that he had not been given effective 30.06 notice by the noncompliant sign on the door.

Which this unnamed lawyer threw out for me to think about. If he is correct, there is no real difference of opinion here, he would only be criticizing the way the operation of 30.06 is sometimes described.

Cheers,

Jim

7075-T7 wrote:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.