Open carry: negative ramifications

[ScottDLS]

No, I didn't forget that. That's why I referenced it above (and in the original). But the parking lot law specifically applies to CHLs, not to those carrying under MPA authority. But if I'm reading correctly, the 30.06/30.07 specifically apply to CHL, not MPA. So, in the end, I think both are able to have a gun in the car.

Part of the problem is that I think 30.06/30.07 was written with the intention of posting a building. This place is a large campus with many buildings, roads, and parking lots. So gets a bit messy.

Again, the main big difference is the possibility of getting caught with a weapon in a building being a violation of company policy (for employees) vs. a Class A misdemeanor for everyone.

The parking lot law applies to all employees regardless of whether they have a CHL or not (with a few minor exceptions). Violating a 30.06 sign is a class C misdemeanor after 1/1/16, unless you refuse to leave. Violating a 30.07 sign is a "nothing" until 1/1/16 because the statute doesn't come in effect until then, then it's a class C, until you refuse to leave.

30.06 is not applicable to anyone in a vehicle whether they have a CHL or not. Theoretically a 30.07 sign WILL be enforceable even if you're in a vehicle, and will be a class C until you're told to leave.

If an employer posts 30.06/7 on a building, and an employee violates it they are committing a class C misdemeanor (after 1/1/2016) and they can be fired, regardless of the parking lot law, as it only covers vehicles. A non-employee is committing a class C (after 1/1/2016).

[K.Mooneyham]

The public is receiving much more education about the laws this go around and due to OC are paying far more attention.

Thanks CJ

I wasn't necessarily referring to OCT or OCTC, but rather the new law itself since it has been getting a lot of coverage in the news. It is a big change. Being out of sight for so long, many people have absolutely no idea how many people around them during their daily routine are legally armed. They still won't know, but it will no longer be "out of sight, out of mind."

I was referring to anyone who wanted OC to become legal. All of the OC info meetings around the state is negative for CC. Actually, it seems the "right" to OC has infringed on the "right" to CC. Ironic isn't it? In the effort to expand one right is seems to be hurting both.

There wouldn't have been all this hoopla if it wasn't for the troublemakers in OCT and OCTC playing "Chipotle ninja" and whipping the antis into a frenzy. So, yeah, I know who I blame for any problems that arise from this.

[SlowDave]

Slowdave. The law changes on that jan 1st. Now carrying past a 30.06 /07 sign is a class C, 200 fine. Bumps up IF you refuse to leave.

As to your last sentence, if it is posted 30.06 and the company reports you, you get the companies punishment as well as the law. You are not exempt from the law because your an employee. So if they have a 30.06 sign posted, it doesn't matter if your an employee or a customer, you can't carry.

Stingeragent,
Agree completely. I didn't intend to say that they couldn't fire you etc in addition to the legal ramifications. What I meant to say is that they cannot void the 30.06/07 sign. After it's posted, and if I were to enter a building carrying, it's in the legal system for that part and the company can't decide, "well, we were just kidding" no matter what they've said in their announcement or anything else.

But yes, of course they can still deal with you as they wish with respect to employment, etc.

Good to hear about the change to a 30.06/07 violation being class C instead of class A. Is the document with these revisions not released yet? I was referencing https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetf ... CHL-16.pdf and it indicates it's a class A but the cover does say "2013-2014". Seems like if open carry starts in 11 days or so, maybe there should be an updated document and I'm just not finding it?

[casp625]

Slowdave. The law changes on that jan 1st. Now carrying past a 30.06 /07 sign is a class C, 200 fine. Bumps up IF you refuse to leave.

As to your last sentence, if it is posted 30.06 and the company reports you, you get the companies punishment as well as the law. You are not exempt from the law because your an employee. So if they have a 30.06 sign posted, it doesn't matter if your an employee or a customer, you can't carry.

Stingeragent,
Agree completely. I didn't intend to say that they couldn't fire you etc in addition to the legal ramifications. What I meant to say is that they cannot void the 30.06/07 sign. After it's posted, and if I were to enter a building carrying, it's in the legal system for that part and the company can't decide, "well, we were just kidding" no matter what they've said in their announcement or anything else.

But yes, of course they can still deal with you as they wish with respect to employment, etc.

Good to hear about the change to a 30.06/07 violation being class C instead of class A. Is the document with these revisions not released yet? I was referencing https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetf ... CHL-16.pdf and it indicates it's a class A but the cover does say "2013-2014". Seems like if open carry starts in 11 days or so, maybe there should be an updated document and I'm just not finding it?

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#30.06

[Glockster]

Did everyone forget the obvious? Big win from the 2013 session:

§52.061. RESTRICTION ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION. A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

A company can't post a §30.06 sign in a parking lot and enforce it against an employee. It doesn't matter that it's trespass law or a criminal statute versus company policy, since §30.06 doesn't apply to people who have "effective consent" - §52.061 basically forces a company to grant its employees effective consent for trespass purposes and would give you a cause for civil action if they pushed the matter.

IANAL!

However, being an "at will" employment state, they can on a totally unrelated matter decide that they no longer want to employ you.

[MasterOfNone]

What I meant to say is that they cannot void the 30.06/07 sign. After it's posted, and if I were to enter a building carrying, it's in the legal system for that part and the company can't decide, "well, we were just kidding" no matter what they've said in their announcement or anything else.

30.06 says you commit an offense if you (1) carry "without effective consent" AND (2) receive notice. If you have proof that they said you are allowed to carry despite the sign, then (1) is not met as required for the offense.

[austinborderline]

30.06 is not applicable to anyone in a vehicle whether they have a CHL or not. Theoretically a 30.07 sign WILL be enforceable even if you're in a vehicle, and will be a class C until you're told to leave.

Looking at the revised statute, it appears that "concealed" is never defined (they struck the definition). Were I a business wishing to keep all handguns off property, including parking lots, I'd argue that posting both 30.06 and 30.07 at every parking lot entrance prohibits non-employees from entering the parking lot with a handgun. In fact, a gun in the glove box, in a holster under a jacket, even in the trunk would seem to be concealed.

Such businesses probably wouldn't want anyone carrying concealed or open outside of their cars, either in their parking lots or elsewhere on their grounds, either, so they'd necessarily need to post the signage at the entrances to the parking lot.

[C-dub]

30.06 is not applicable to anyone in a vehicle whether they have a CHL or not. Theoretically a 30.07 sign WILL be enforceable even if you're in a vehicle, and will be a class C until you're told to leave.

Looking at the revised statute, it appears that "concealed" is never defined (they struck the definition). Were I a business wishing to keep all handguns off property, including parking lots, I'd argue that posting both 30.06 and 30.07 at every parking lot entrance prohibits non-employees from entering the parking lot with a handgun. In fact, a gun in the glove box, in a holster under a jacket, even in the trunk would seem to be concealed.

Such businesses probably wouldn't want anyone carrying concealed or open outside of their cars, either in their parking lots or elsewhere on their grounds, either, so they'd necessarily need to post the signage at the entrances to the parking lot.

Welcome to the forum.

A 30.06 or 30.07 sign will be meaningless to a person without a CHL or LTC that has a concealed handgun in their vehicle in accordance with the MPA that enters a parking lot with either a 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted at any or all entrances. A person with a handgun in their vehicle under the authority of the MPA does not have to inform an officer that they have it and it must be concealed.

[austinborderline]

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. Interesting stuff. I never carry but had my CHL when they first came out. It lapsed and I never renewed because the only time I ever carry is in my car.

A 30.06 or 30.07 sign will be meaningless to a person without a CHL or LTC that has a concealed handgun in their vehicle in accordance with the MPA that enters a parking lot with either a 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted at any or all entrances.

Yeah, it seems like this is a situation where someone who is licensed could have fewer rights than someone who is not.

If a parking lot entrance has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted, I don't think a licensee can carry a handgun onto the property in his car but a non-licensee can, as the signs don't apply to him and MPA seems to allow it.

Beyond 30.06 and 30.07, I wonder if an business can somehow post a sign that prohibits all handguns in a way that would create a trespass offense?

[austinborderline]

A company can't post a §30.06 sign in a parking lot and enforce it against an employee.

Clarification: They can enforce 30.06 if the licensed employee removes the handgun from his/her car in the parking lot and it is concealed. (Which begs the question of how the employer would know unless they suspected and asked.)

They could also enforce 30.07 in the parking lot if the employee fails to conceal the handgun while in or out of the car (e.g., shoulder holstered while in his car and another employee sees it).

If your employer posts either sign, think through the ramifications carefully.

[ScottDLS]

Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. Interesting stuff. I never carry but had my CHL when they first came out. It lapsed and I never renewed because the only time I ever carry is in my car.

A 30.06 or 30.07 sign will be meaningless to a person without a CHL or LTC that has a concealed handgun in their vehicle in accordance with the MPA that enters a parking lot with either a 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted at any or all entrances.

Yeah, it seems like this is a situation where someone who is licensed could have fewer rights than someone who is not.

If a parking lot entrance has 30.06 and 30.07 signs posted, I don't think a licensee can carry a handgun onto the property in his car but a non-licensee can, as the signs don't apply to him and MPA seems to allow it.

Beyond 30.06 and 30.07, I wonder if an business can somehow post a sign that prohibits all handguns in a way that would create a trespass offense?

A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.

[C-dub]

A licensee carrying a gun in his car is not carrying "under the authority" of his LTC, therefore 30.06 does not apply, as it does not apply to a non-licensee. The 30.06 statute is very specific that offense occurs while carrying "under the authority" of LTC. And even 30.05 has a defense for a person who HAS a LTC and is being excluded for carrying a handgun.

There you go.

Thanks Scott. You beat me to it by a few minutes, but I just got home from work and turned the computer on only a few minutes ago.

[treadlightly]

The local schools have all posted 30.06 and 30.07 signs, at one campus right at the entrance to the parking lot. Even though they are already as protected as Sandy Hook by federal law, they just had to go and post 30.06/30.07. It's theatrics, not public safety.

I'm worried and I'm a little offended. Those signs tell me somebody "knows" I have murder in my heart and barring restraint, I'll uncork hell on earth. It doesn't matter that I rescue lost puppies. Somebody is convinced that I, and people like me, require extra scrutiny.

Criminals know the police can't be everywhere. I guess just like those government officials who assume I'm just a seven pound sear away from little Timmy's last breath, I have growing concern government entities will figure out the AG can't be everywhere, either. If even a relatively small percentage of nanny government officials unlawfully post 30.06, most of them will get away with it.

If enough government offices post 30.06, the law against the practice will fade away like the antique Austin ordinance against carrying wirecutters on Congress Avenue. All it will take is the AG running low on resources.

There is some good news, though. New signs are going up because Texas passed open carry. That's not much of a leap.

As a result, we have a clear view of who respects civil rights. It's not much good news, but a line has been drawn. 'Course, that and a Visa Gold card will get you a cup of Starbuck's coffee, but it's something.

Personally, I don't much care if a private establishment requires neckties or bans open carry. I respect differing views, but to me banning OC is a dress code issue.

Banning concealed carry is an unwholesome fascination with my foundation garments. They shouldn't be able to ban going commando, even if that means one in the chamber. All God's creations have defense mechanisms. Even the two little highway puppies I now care for have teeth, a fact to which I can attest, every evening I'm a little slow getting the dog treats.

Wait - that's it, that's the loophole! Not having big teeth is a disability! It's not a gun, it's prosthetic fangs! Where's my reserved parking space??

[locke_n_load]

The local schools have all posted 30.06 and 30.07 signs, at one campus right at the entrance to the parking lot. Even though they are already as protected as Sandy Hook by federal law, they just had to go and post 30.06/30.07. It's theatrics, not public safety.

I'm worried and I'm a little offended. Those signs tell me somebody "knows" I have murder in my heart and barring restraint, I'll uncork heck on earth. It doesn't matter that I rescue lost puppies. Somebody is convinced that I, and people like me, require extra scrutiny.

Criminals know the police can't be everywhere. I guess just like those government officials who assume I'm just a seven pound sear away from little Timmy's last breath, I have growing concern government entities will figure out the AG can't be everywhere, either. If even a relatively small percentage of nanny government officials unlawfully post 30.06, most of them will get away with it.

If enough government offices post 30.06, the law against the practice will fade away like the antique Austin ordinance against carrying wirecutters on Congress Avenue. All it will take is the AG running low on resources.

There is some good news, though. New signs are going up because Texas passed open carry. That's not much of a leap.

As a result, we have a clear view of who respects civil rights. It's not much good news, but a line has been drawn. 'Course, that and a Visa Gold card will get you a cup of Starbuck's coffee, but it's something.

Personally, I don't much care if a private establishment requires neckties or bans open carry. I respect differing views, but to me banning OC is a dress code issue.

Banning concealed carry is an unwholesome fascination with my foundation garments. They shouldn't be able to ban going commando, even if that means one in the chamber. All God's creations have defense mechanisms. Even the two little highway puppies I now care for have teeth, a fact to which I can attest, every evening I'm a little slow getting the dog treats.

Wait - that's it, that's the loophole! Not having big teeth is a disability! It's not a gun, it's prosthetic fangs! Where's my reserved parking space??

The signs outside in the parking lot of a school are not enforceable, and you could probably file a complaint with the AG for the 30.06 sign if you wanted to.

[C-dub]

I'm starting to get more notifications from texas3006.com about places putting up 30.06 and or 30.07 signs. One was even for a gas station that put up both. I've never seen a gas station with a 30.06 sign before, but apparently there's one now.

Thanks OCT and OCTC!