3006 Sign Question

[BigGuy]

The place I work is posted. Due to Corona, we now have the inner doors (this one with the signs) open. Somebody entering the facility will walk past the signs at an oblique angle with a mirror image. I've tried to explain to management that these signs are not enforceable. Am I correct?
I'm Security at this facility. I'm told to call the police and confiscate the weapon of anybody "Violating" the posting. Just wondering what the legal repercussions might be.

[rtschl]

I agree that the sign is not compliant because it is not in contrasting colors nor displayed in a conspicuous manner since the doors are both open and someone could easily walk by and not see them. However, that doesn't mean a person won't take a ride, nor would I gamble that said person would beat the rap either.

But I can't believe your employer expects you to confiscate someone's weapon. Are you expected to draw your weapon on a person to disarm him or her? Do they expect you to arrest someone for a misdemeanor? I would worry about the legal repercussions of trying to confiscate someone's private property even though it is a firearm. The property owner and you as a licensed security officer acting on the owner's behalf have certain rights which include not allowing someone to carry on the premises if proper notice is given. This is either a Class A or Class C misdemeanor criminal trespass. But I don't believe that gives you on behalf of the property owner the right to disarm someone for a misdemeanor violation of 30.06 or 30.07.

Police or anyone in Texas can arrest someone if they observe a felony or offense against the public peace. Criminal trespass under 30.06/30.07 is not a felony nor an offense against the public peace. I believe that you can detain/arrest to prevent the consequences of theft though.

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

[jimd1981]

Good advice from rtschl.
I would carefully consider the possible ramifications of your Employers enforcement wishes.
I might consider, personally, informing someone who may have missed the sign that handguns are not allowed on the premises as a reasonable first step, progressing to calling the police should the offender not depart.
But, Disarming and Detaining as policy? That escalated quickly!

[RoyGBiv]

If I'm on that jury, I think I'd find those signs sufficiently conspicuous. However, I'm not going to be detained or disarmed for walking past it.

1. A violation is a misdemeanor, as was pointed out previously. Someone is going to pay for the illegal detainment and the results of the unjustified escalation.

2. As an emergency service volunteer, the law provides a defense to prosecution for my bypassing those signs.

Inform me, ask me to leave. Call po-po and trespass me if I don't comply.

[Soccerdad1995]

I agree with the posters above that it is a VERY bad idea to detain and disarm someone who comes in there with a weapon. That would be the commission of multiple felonies in response to someone who you suspect of committing a Class C misdemeanor. I'm not sure of who exactly would be criminally liable for the illegal detention, theft, and likely assault (assuming you threaten the person so that they give you their weapon) charges, but I'm thinking that your employer may deny they ever told you to do anything of the sort once the you know what hits the fan. So if I were you, I'd definitely want to educate my employer on the legal issues involved here. I'd also say to get their instructions in writing, but I'm not sure that helps much with the criminal liability.

As far as the enforcability of the sign, it is a judgment call as to whether the sign is conspicuously displayed but it is a clear factual determination that the sign does not have contrasting colors. So if I was on a jury I'd say the sign is not legally valid under 30.06 or 30.07. Of course, if I was on a jury for a Class C misdemeanor case with a max $200 fine I'd first want to ask the prosecutor why he was wasting my tax dollars taking such a case to a jury trial in the first place.

The above assumes this is not a statutorily prohibited place.

[OneGun]

Couldn't you just inform them of the signs (give notice) and ask them to leave and not return unless they are disarmed?

[jerry_r60]

I suggest showing the 30.06 law to your employer. Point out that the appropriate way to accomplish their wishes would be to have you give oral notice to the person or, you could have some cards printed up that you hand to the person. Only if they refused to leave after that would it be appropriate to contact law enforcement.

No to the disarming.

Here is a portion of 30.06
30.06 TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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 Previous Hit30.06Next Hit, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

[BigGuy]

Sorry guys. I wasn't clear on the confiscate part. The only time this happened, the patient was carrying concealed. Once the Dr. began to examine him and discovered the weapon, he voluntarily surrendered it to me at the Dr.s request. I returned it to him when he left.
The next day, my Sergeant said I should have called the police and let them return the weapon. He said they could have checked to be sure he didn't have warrants.
I'd feel better about that if the signs were more prominently displayed. I don't believe the guy saw the signs. He was concentrating more on his pain than his surroundings.
If somebody refused to surrender the weapon, we would refuse treatment and ask them to leave. If they didn't then we'd call the police.

[rtschl]

Sorry guys. I wasn't clear on the confiscate part. The only time this happened, the patient was carrying concealed. Once the Dr. began to examine him and discovered the weapon, he voluntarily surrendered it to me at the Dr.s request. I returned it to him when he left.
The next day, my Sergeant said I should have called the police and let them return the weapon. He said they could have checked to be sure he didn't have warrants.
I'd feel better about that if the signs were more prominently displayed. I don't believe the guy saw the signs. He was concentrating more on his pain than his surroundings.
If somebody refused to surrender the weapon, we would refuse treatment and ask them to leave. If they didn't then we'd call the police.

Ok, I was thinking they wanted you to do something very dangerous and that would quickly escalate a situation rather than de-escalate it.

[srothstein]

Sorry guys. I wasn't clear on the confiscate part. The only time this happened, the patient was carrying concealed. Once the Dr. began to examine him and discovered the weapon, he voluntarily surrendered it to me at the Dr.s request. I returned it to him when he left.
The next day, my Sergeant said I should have called the police and let them return the weapon. He said they could have checked to be sure he didn't have warrants.
I'd feel better about that if the signs were more prominently displayed. I don't believe the guy saw the signs. He was concentrating more on his pain than his surroundings.
If somebody refused to surrender the weapon, we would refuse treatment and ask them to leave. If they didn't then we'd call the police.

This makes the situation much more clear. In that case, no one confiscated anything. The patient just agreed to let you hold the weapon while he was being treated.

When I first read your post about detaining the person, I wanted to point out that it has pretty severe potential consequences for both you and your employer (the security company and the doctor). There are civil liabilities for you, the doctor, and the company when you violate the law by improperly detaining someone. The law was already pointed out on when you can arrest (you have no legal authority to detain, just arrest) and this does not meet those requirements (in my opinion). The one mentioned but not specifically cited is in Article 18.16, preventing the consequences of a threat. This lets anyone arrest a person that has committed a theft (with the caveat that they better be right because it requires you to take the recovered property with the suspect to the judge).

But briefly mentioned and not explicitly stated was that you can be arrested yourself. You can be charged under Penal Code 20.02 for unlawfully restraining a person. You can also be charged under section 20.03 with kidnapping if you used your firearm to hold him. Even threatening deadly force makes it kidnapping, so be very careful what you say (just drawing the gun is the threat of deadly force, you don't need to pull the trigger).

But I bet if you point out your actual authority to the doctor combined with his liability under theories of vicarious liability (failure to train, negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, etc.), he would not want you detaining or arresting too many people.

[G.A. Heath]

My thoughts are have your supervisors clear their policy with their attornies. Potential liabilities are virtually unlimited and include unlawful detainment, theft (taking the weapon given to you for safekweping and then turning it over to a third party), even the refusing treatment unless they surrender the weapon might bring legal issues of it's own.

I would also request guidance from an attorney myself once I get the hospital's legal staff's opinion.

[BigGuy]

My thoughts are have your supervisors clear their policy with their attornies. Potential liabilities are virtually unlimited and include unlawful detainment, theft (taking the weapon given to you for safekweping and then turning it over to a third party), even the refusing treatment unless they surrender the weapon might bring legal issues of it's own.

I would also request guidance from an attorney myself once I get the hospital's legal staff's opinion.

Your advice is sound. However, I definitely got the impression I was dealing with a gun grabber. She/They don't really care to support the spirit of the law. Otherwise, it's a fantastic place to work. I'm not going to give up all the good for this one bad.
However!
I've made up my mind that I will not initiate any action, other than notify an open carrier about the signs. (If they ignore that verbal notice, I'm now operating under a legitimate notice.) It will be up to the Medical or Administration staff to confront the patient once a concealed weapon is discovered.
Yes, the clinic is putting itself at risk. I warned them. My conscious is clear. I was just hoping that somebody could point me to a court decision I could refer them to. I like this place and people, but they appear to have a bit of an arrogant attitude about security. They just don't think it can happen to them.

[LDB415]

One of the good things about cargo pants, unless someone opens your pockets they never know what may or may not be in them. I do not consider "clear" to be a color. "Any" sign on glass is not in compliance with the requirement if I am on the jury. I also don't find it "conspicuous" if the doors are open so there is no reason to look at them while entering. YMMV