Another 30.06 posting thread...

[TxSigp229]

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.

[bdickens]

If you go there, are you going to see the sign?

[TxSigp229]

If you go there, are you going to see the sign?

LOL, no... I go there once in a blue moon to have lunch with her when the weather is bad and I'd rather not leave my chl in the car since their offices is located in a shady neighborhood

[bdickens]

If you don't see the sign then you haven't been given notice.

[CWOOD]

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

[jmra]

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?

[CWOOD]

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.

Certainly you may disagree and I appreciated the respectful part. Please do not make assumptions about the application of the law, i.e. "the sign is only intended for staff". The sign is applicable to anyone who sees the sign. In addition, the original poster has already said that he KNOWS the sign is there. If he sees the sign (asuming it is properly constructed) he has been given notice.

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?

Again you are free to disagree and we all gotta do what we gotta do....HOWEVER the 30.06 law says nothing about having to give multiple notices to an individual. It says that an individual CHL holder must be given notice in order for 30.06 to apply. If you see the sign at the mall, you HAVE been given notice. Please note my original post about this. The scenerio I proposed was that a person approached a mall entrance and saw the sign and then entered by another entrance that did not have a sign. This person saw the sign and therefore was given notice and therefore even if he later happended to find an entrance that did not have the sign he still already was on notice.

In both situations one can concoct convoluted variations to try to avoid the fact that notice has been given and therefore "it doesn't apply to me". The fact is that the law generally has few personal exceptions and a "reasonable" standard is applied to it by LEO's, judges and juries.

As I said, you are certainly free to try to do as you see fit. However when giving advice to people who are 'NEW TO CHL', it might not be helpful to those folks to give them questionable advice on how to avoid the letter of the law...unless you happen to have a law degree and specialize in this area and are willing to offer pro bono work on their behalf. I do not have a law degree, but I have been a CHL instructor for a number of years. While that certainly does not provide me with the mantle of infallibility, if has provided me with some knowledge from the source of this system and sufficient caution to avoid situations where i might be charged with Tresspass By a License Holder, and might be arrested, and might have my CHL suspended or worse, and might have to go to jail, and might have to go to court, and might have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer who does not do pro bono work and might be convicted by a jury of reasonable persons who are not interested in a fine point arguement on how to avoid following the law as written.

I suggest that we will have to 'respectfully agree to disagree.

[TxSigp229]

Jmra and Cwood, thanks for your replies.

Here's a pic of the 30.06 as it is posted in only the staff break room - none posted at any of their 3 entrances to the building.





I'm going to side with caution on this one and keep my CC at home when I do have to go there unless I can talk my g/f into talking her boss into taking it down or at least giving me oral or written permission to CC while there. I don't think that the boss/owner has a problem with CHLs since both he and his son are avid hunters however I am aware of prior incidents of disgruntled clients coming in with firearms.

[PUCKER]

The wording of that 30.06 is not correct, here's the correct text and info from the Texas DPS site:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY
In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:
"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."


Download language
Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:
includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

[Purplehood]

Jmra and Cwood, thanks for your replies.

Here's a pic of the 30.06 as it is posted in only the staff break room - none posted at any of their 3 entrances to the building.





I'm going to side with caution on this one and keep my CC at home when I do have to go there unless I can talk my g/f into talking her boss into taking it down or at least giving me oral or written permission to CC while there. I don't think that the boss/owner has a problem with CHLs since both he and his son are avid hunters however I am aware of prior incidents of disgruntled clients coming in with firearms.

More reason to permit CHL's...

[Oldgringo]

Perhaps the business is telling its employees not to wear their guns to work?

[OldSchool]

I have a lot of problem understanding the purpose of this sign in this break room. If I, a patron of the store, would have to enter a room not accessible to the public, then what makes me a violator of this sign if I never enter that room?

I have to agree with the general idea that the 30.06 prohibition is only in effect when the place is posted, and thus I must be notified each time I enter any posted location. I also agree that if I know the building is currently legally posted when I enter, even if I do not see a sign on entry, then I am in violation.

Which then brings me to this question, which was hinted at earlier: How far does the "posting" have authority? That is, if the sign is only in an interior room, does it apply to the entire store? If only in one store, does it apply to the entire mall? If only in one building of a multi-building mall, does it apply to the entire multi-building mall (if signs are not in one or more of the other buildings)?

Yes, this probably seems too nit-picky, but that's how the Law does things (and I get irritated when confused by the rules), and the answers could help us understand the area I consider to be the most confusing of the CHL rules.

[Bart]

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.

Again you are free to disagree and we all gotta do what we gotta do....HOWEVER the 30.06 law says nothing about having to give multiple notices to an individual. It says that an individual CHL holder must be given notice in order for 30.06 to apply.

It says nothing about multiple notices but it does define premises. Consider a hypothetical mall with two anchor stores. If the SPEARS store posts a valid 30.06 sign, it applies to the SPEARS store but there's no reason to think it applies anywhere else. Same with the MACE'S store at the other end of the mall. On the other hand, if the mall posts signs at the main entrance, it's reasonable to believe the 30.06 prohibition applies to the mall common areas, but not to the SPEARS and MACE'S stores if they don't post signs.

Obviously a BASS PRO that sells guns and has a shooting range doesn't prohibit guns, even if it's attached to a mall that posts a 30.06 sign in the food court.

[CWOOD]

From TxXigp226:

I'm going to side with caution on this one and keep my CC at home when I do have to go there unless I can talk my g/f into talking her boss into taking it down or at least giving me oral or written permission to CC while there. I don't think that the boss/owner has a problem with CHLs since both he and his son are avid hunters however I am aware of prior incidents of disgruntled clients coming in with firearms.

-------
TxSigp226, this is a wise choice. Even though there is incorrect wording as point out by PUCKER, and maybe a size problem, the question to ask your self is if all the potential legal repurcussions if you were to be found out would be worth it. Eventually you would most likely be cleared, but juries sometimes do strange stuff. This does not even address the potential problems for the girlfriend. Who knows...some folks do weird stuff around firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From PUCKER:

The wording of that 30.06 is not correct, here's the correct text and info from the Texas DPS site:
------------
Good catch PUCKER. I could just barely read the sign, even after you pointed out the wording error. There may be a size error, also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From OldSchool:
I have to agree with the general idea that the 30.06 prohibition is only in effect when the place is posted, and thus I must be notified each time I enter any posted location. I also agree that if I know the building is currently legally posted when I enter, even if I do not see a sign on entry, then I am in violation.

Which then brings me to this question, which was hinted at earlier: How far does the "posting" have authority? That is, if the sign is only in an interior room, does it apply to the entire store? If only in one store, does it apply to the entire mall? If only in one building of a multi-building mall, does it apply to the entire multi-building mall (if signs are not in one or more of the other buildings)?

Yes, this probably seems too nit-picky, but that's how the Law does things (and I get irritated when confused by the rules), and the answers could help us understand the area I consider to be the most confusing of the CHL rules.
--------
OldSchool, the reason that some of the law is not finally settled is that there have been no precedents set on much of it. The reason for this is that the CHL holders in Texas are so dang law-abiding, that they err on the side of caution as TxSigp226 chose to do and, therefore we don't get arrested and charged, so we don't get convicted so there is not precedent. Personally, I would rather have it this way with a little bit of the law still open to interpretation rather than have bunch of us get careless and get convicted of things and then force the hand of the judicial process.

As far as the postings at stores in a mall or in the mall itself, my position is that if I have not personally seen the sign, I have not been notified, however when I do see the sign I will depart immediately. This should cover me legally. Again, there is not much case law in this area because we have avoided the circumstances which give rise to case law. Regarding signs in one store of a mall or in a backroom, we all have to use our best judgement and try to follow the law.

As a side note, we ofter hear "Concealed means Concealed'. Obviously a truism. If it means we do not let others know about our carry status because we are supposed to keep the weapon concealed, or because we want to maintain a tactical advantage in a worst case scenerio, or because we don't want to deal with the turmoil caused by overly sensative types around us, I agree wholeheartedly.

If in some situations "Concealed means Concealed" means I can violate the law because my weapon is concealed and no one will ever know and it is OK because I am a really good person so that little technicality shouldn't apply to me...then I STRONGLY disagree with the phrase.

The truth of our character is demonstrated by our conduct when no one is watching. To know what the right thing to do is does not display character, however doing the right thing will.

[CWOOD]

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.

Again you are free to disagree and we all gotta do what we gotta do....HOWEVER the 30.06 law says nothing about having to give multiple notices to an individual. It says that an individual CHL holder must be given notice in order for 30.06 to apply.

It says nothing about multiple notices but it does define premises. Consider a hypothetical mall with two anchor stores. If the SPEARS store posts a valid 30.06 sign, it applies to the SPEARS store but there's no reason to think it applies anywhere else. Same with the MACE'S store at the other end of the mall. On the other hand, if the mall posts signs at the main entrance, it's reasonable to believe the 30.06 prohibition applies to the mall common areas, but not to the SPEARS and MACE'S stores if they don't post signs.

Obviously a BASS PRO that sells guns and has a shooting range doesn't prohibit guns, even if it's attached to a mall that posts a 30.06 sign in the food court.

Bart, you may well be correct. As I said this is in unsettled areas of the law. This is not a bad thing as it may give us some wiggle room for "reasonable doubt". Of course we each have to decide our own course of action based on the circumstances at the time. There is no way we could predict all the possible variations. I believe if we actively try to obey the law with a lean to conservative interpretation, act in good faith and generally don't act like a knuckle head we will continue to be fine. Also if we just chose to go elsewhere when we can, things will work out.

Nice talking with you fine folks...BYE.