Another 30.06 posting thread...

[RPB]

We need to be careful of our use of verbal vs. oral. I don't remember who, but someone pointed out to me sometime ago on this forum that "verbal" is not necessarily "oral." Verbal merely means "with words" and can be written, but "oral" means the spoken word or "by mouth."

The requirement as stated in 30.06 is specific that notice must be either oral or written and also goes further to define what written must include. And we are also aware that a sign has to have certain physical characteristics.

This is true, and I know the difference, but often in my verbiage within my posts of exeeding verbosity, I am guilty of the occasional misuse or misapplication of that word "verbal" when I mean oral.

IANAWBMMW (I am Not A Writer But My Mom Was)

[C-dub]

I had no specific person in mind and was quite guilty of the misuse of the word "verbal" before I was enlightened. I just noticed that "verbal" was getting used a lot and thought that some might be using it when they really mean "oral."

As bad as my memory is about some things, it could have been you, RPB, that enlightened me.

[sjfcontrol]

Umm, perhaps, but ONE of the definitions of "verbal" is...

Pertaining to language in general, or to spoken words in particular.
Thus there is at least an implication of spoken words in the term.

Of course, there are other definitions that are more generic.

[C-dub]

Umm, perhaps, but ONE of the definitions of "verbal" is...

Pertaining to language in general, or to spoken words in particular.
Thus there is at least an implication of spoken words in the term.

Of course, there are other definitions that are more generic.

Absolutely. Verbal can be oral or written, but oral can only be oral. And the statute is clear in that it does say "verbal."

[sjfcontrol]

30.06 (b) uses "oral". Are you looking somewhere else?

[jmra]

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".

[psijac]

Umm, perhaps, but ONE of the definitions of "verbal" is...

Pertaining to language in general, or to spoken words in particular.
Thus there is at least an implication of spoken words in the term.

Of course, there are other definitions that are more generic.

Absolutely. Verbal can be oral or written, but oral can only be oral. And the statute is clear in that it does say "verbal."

I was under the impression that anytime they used a verb it was a verbal notice.


"You Gun here Crime Felon" would be an invalid notice

[jmaynard]

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

You are mistaken here. Posting in legal terms is required to be charged with unlawful carry under 30.06. Failure to leave after being asked or notified is trespass and not a violation of 30.06 and much different in penalty and effect. SIgns in 30.06 must be visible upon entering an facility. If the break room wall is clearly visible then it is properly posted. If not, they have not notified you. They can trespass you if they learn you have a weapon, but they must provide you an opportunity to leave and cannot hold you, which would constitute false arrest. There are a lot of factors going on here, leas of which is due process, another guanrantee, and much more defined process, in our Constitution.

That being said, why go somewhere that you are not welcome. Move on and or try to educate the owners.

[Originalist]

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.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by 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.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 9.24, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

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

You are mistaken here. Posting in legal terms is required to be charged with unlawful carry under 30.06. Failure to leave after being asked or notified is trespass and not a violation of 30.06 and much different in penalty and effect. SIgns in 30.06 must be visible upon entering an facility. If the break room wall is clearly visible then it is properly posted. If not, they have not notified you. They can trespass you if they learn you have a weapon, but they must provide you an opportunity to leave and cannot hold you, which would constitute false arrest. There are a lot of factors going on here, leas of which is due process, another guanrantee, and much more defined process, in our Constitution.

That being said, why go somewhere that you are not welcome. Move on and or try to educate the owners.

Please please reread the above 30.06 because you are mistaken. Pay special attention to what kind of notice is acceptable, where the sign must be (nothing about it being visible upon entering) and entering past a legal sign or staying after receiving legal notice are both violations of TPC 30.06.

Hope this clarifies any confusion for you.

[boomerang]

Failure to leave after being asked or notified is trespass and not a violation of 30.06 and much different in penalty and effect.

What difference in penalty? Carrying a handgun (or any deadly weapon) bumps 30.05 to a class A misdemeanor.