State Employee says no 30.06 needed???

[Beiruty]

Maybe I grew up different than some folks but where I come from Police officers don't randomly harass good honest citizens while they are just standing around in any establishment. As a matter of fact, Police officers typically say howdy if I say howdy to them and very often they will even say howdy first, once I make eye contact. I can't imagine, for one second, some police officer just randomly asking me for my ID for no reason other than a strange twist of fate. This is so ridiculous it is beyond comprehension. Would this random request for "papers" be similar to Nazi Germany under Hitler?

This is yet another example of an irrational fear.

Last I checked LEOs are human beings not some strange Aliens with evil intent on destroying us!

[frazzled]

PC 30.05(f) provides a defense to prosecution unless valid notice is given under 30.06

That is why it remains legally possible to get a conviction for non-compliant notice. Change that defense to an exception, and all will be right.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, any sign that in any way says something to the effect of "no guns" (be it a gunbusters sign or something else), COULD potentially lead to a conviction for criminal trespassing if a CHLee enters said premises with a gun because the 30.05 wording is merely a defense to prosecution, and thus a judge or jury could in their judgment simply reject your defense and convict you anyway?

ScottDLS did a great job of explaining (and like him, I don't let the possibility stop me from carrying).

In a perfect storm of bad prosecutor, bad defense attorney, bad judge, bad jury, and your own ill-advised statements, yes: I believe you could be convicted.

Police question: "So, did you see the big red 'NO GUNS' signs on the doors?"
Wrong answer: "Yeah, but they don't apply to me."
Right answer: "I want to talk to my lawyer before answering any questions."

One more question would need to be asked.

Police question: " Why on earth did you tell them you had a concealed weapon?"
Wrong Answer: "Because I was feeling guilty about carrying a deadly weapon and needed to hear someone tell me I was morally correct in my decision to carry in here."
Right Answer: "Because I am a complete moron."

Well tactically, the defendant wouldn't be on the stand in the first place.

[A-R]

Now all of this very much DOES come into play, and you didn't stupidly unconceal nor have to use your firearm in self defense. And before you say "but now I don't have to show the LEO my CHL" just remember that too is merely a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION,

Care to cite the law on that?

The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

Mea culpa, fellas.

I was confused. I thought this had merely been made a defense to prosecution and didn't realize all codified penalties had been removed from the statute. It still says if you're carrying that you "shall" show your CHL to an LEO that asks for ID, but does not codify any specific penalty for failing to do so. As for if/when an LEO can ask for your ID, that's a bigger can of worms.

[A-R]

The requirement to present your CHL is in the government code and not the penal code. There is no DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION of not showing your CHL, because... it is not a crime. There's no administrative penalty (suspension, etc...) either. This is a recent (2009) change. Before, first offense was suspension, and second was a class B misdemeanor.

Yes, but there is no penalty any more. And also, as lighteningrocks says, and I understand your point of likeliness, a LEO cannot just simply ask someone for ID unless they have a clear reason to. It's way too early for me to be able to find this in the statutes this morning, but there are clear guidelines to when a LEO may ask for ID. And I could very well be wrong on this one, but if one doesn't have to show ID, then I would think that one also doesn't have to show the CHL.

Maybe I grew up different than some folks but where I come from Police officers don't randomly harass good honest citizens while they are just standing around in any establishment. As a matter of fact, Police officers typically say howdy if I say howdy to them and very often they will even say howdy first, once I make eye contact. I can't imagine, for one second, some police officer just randomly asking me for my ID for no reason other than a strange twist of fate. This is so ridiculous it is beyond comprehension. Would this random request for "papers" be similar to Nazi Germany under Hitler?

This is yet another example of an irrational fear.

Last I checked LEOs are human beings not some strange Aliens with evil intent on destroying us!

Points taken. The conversation had already gone way out on the deep end about is it possible that you could somehow be found guilty of violating 30.05 Criminal Trespass and how would they know you were carrying in the first place. So I just walked a bit further out.

BUT, while I agree that the vast majority of LEOs are good, honest, hard-working people. There are the bitter few who look for a reason to harass people, especially "certain" people. The anecdotal evidence is everywhere, even on this forum, of people being stopped and harassed by law enforcement for various reasons. Not saying it's the norm and certainly not labeling all LEOs as taking part in such things. But it does happen.

My original scenario, though flawed in it's original wording, could likely end up as one of those "beat the rap but not the ride" situations, with an overzealous LEO "detaining" you for some trumped up reason, then you failed to properly show ID, then he finds out you're carrying in a place with a "no guns" sign, etc. It's just a snowball rolling downhill at that point. Not a likely scenario, but then we were not really discussing likely scenarios. As I said, we were pretty far off the deep end of "what if" already.

And I did look up the statute in question just to clarify that under penal code you are not required to show ID unless under arrest/detained.

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

Also, just as an example of a situation that proves none of us know the law as much as we think we do (or perhaps WE do, but the LEOs don't ... not trying to open that can of worms), take a look at this Q/A that popped up in a Google search about requirements to show ID. Granted it's a college situation, so concealed carry is definitely off limits there by statute. But the general scenario is the same. If not arrested/detained, we would think "I don't have to show you ID" ... this university police chief sees it differently, citing a different law I'd never heard of before. Point is, I don't EVER want to risk "the ride" on the grounds that an LEO does not have the authority to ask for my ID. I don't know every little statute in Texas. That's why I try very hard to just keep my nose clean and avoid situations with the potential to get "sticky".

http://prtl.uhcl.edu/portal/page/portal ... f%20%20FAQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Q. Am I required to show identification to a UHCL Police Officer upon request?

A. Yes. In fact, per Texas Education Code, Section 51.209, identification may be required of any person on university property. Furthermore, any staff or faculty of the university may require you to show identification. It should also be known that failure to show identification upon request from a Police Officer is a citable and/or arresting offense.

And here is the statute this police chief cites (emphasis added by me):

Sec. 51.209. UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS; REFUSAL OF ENTRY, EJECTION, IDENTIFICATION. The governing board of a state institution of higher education or its authorized representatives may refuse to allow persons having no legitimate business to enter on property under the board's control, and may eject any undesirable person from the property on his refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property.

[bizarrenormality]

Sec. 51.209. UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS; REFUSAL OF ENTRY, EJECTION, IDENTIFICATION. The governing board of a state institution of higher education or its authorized representatives may refuse to allow persons having no legitimate business to enter on property under the board's control, and may eject any undesirable person from the property on his refusal to leave peaceably on request. Identification may be required of any person on the property.

Same as any store owner or authorized staff, home owner, golf course owner or authorized staff, etc.

[jmaynard]

OK, I will admit up front that I did not read ALL of these posts. In short, here is my take. Yes, they have notified you. However, in order to charge criminal trespass, they must provide you direct notice of trespass. Once that notice has ben given you are then trespassing if you fail to leave. Just entering when a sign says no guns is not notice of criminal tresspass, only the businesses intent that they have the right to notify you. Not a lawyer, but have been in a situation where I have had to trespass individuals from a business. Me asking them to leave was not even good enough. I had to have law enforcement issue a written trepass warning.

[jmra]

I know a guy who recently took the CHL instructor class. He said the guys teaching the class were still teaching that it was a violation to carry in a place of worship. If the guys teaching the teachers are screwing that up then what to you expect from someone answering the phone or someone with the title of tech?

[Dad24GreatKids]

So what are the chances that the Legislature will do something to clarify all of this during the next session? Who do we need to be contacting in state government about these types of gray areas?

[03Lightningrocks]

So what are the chances that the Legislature will do something to clarify all of this during the next session? Who do we need to be contacting in state government about these types of gray areas?

There actually aren't any gray areas. The law is the law. Your responsibility is to know it. CHL instructors don't make the law. State workers don't make the law. Where you can and can't carry is specifically laid out. What signs can and cannot be legally applied to you are also specifically spelled out.

[dicion]

There actually aren't any gray areas.

Alright then... you tell me the exact definition of as 'school' as applied under CHL law, and I'll agree with you there

[C-dub]

So what are the chances that the Legislature will do something to clarify all of this during the next session? Who do we need to be contacting in state government about these types of gray areas?

There actually aren't any gray areas. The law is the law. Your responsibility is to know it. CHL instructors don't make the law. State workers don't make the law. Where you can and can't carry is specifically laid out. What signs can and cannot be legally applied to you are also specifically spelled out.

I was thinking the same thing. With regards to this thread, there doesn't seem to be anything that requires clearing up legislatively.

[wgoforth]

Finally received a response from the TX DPS CHL Division in regards to the lady from their office on the phone telling me that if a sign says no guns, it matters not if it is 30.06 or not.
Here is her response:

"You will need to consult with an attorney or local police regarding this issue. One can argue that a reasonable, prudent person can determine that a sign other than a 30.06 means the business does not want handguns in their business and thus this would serve as written notice to the public.

Name Withheld
Customer Service Representative I
Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau "

Original letter from me to them:
Sir, I spoke with a lady at your office today who identified herself as Monica. She was very courteous and respectful and this is not to detract from her in any way. However, she stated to me several times that a business does not have to have a 30.06 sign in order to forbid conceal carry. She said if the sign says "no guns" then you shouldn't carry. I asked if she were sure, as your website specifies they must display a sign. She spoke with a tec and affirmed it was correct.

Either instructors for CHL need to be corrected, because they tell their class that if it's not a 30.06 then it can be ignored. OR, both she and the tec need to be corrected. Since 30.06 is what ALL chl holders look for in going into businesses, this needs to be addressed.

[sjfcontrol]

cop-out...

And not what the law says constitutes notification.

Of course, you can be arrested for any durn thing.

[57Coastie]

"You will need to consult with an attorney or local police regarding this issue. One can argue that a reasonable, prudent person can determine that a sign other than a 30.06 means the business owner does not want handguns in his business and thus this would serve as written notice to the public.

Name Withheld
Customer Service Representative I
Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau "

wgoforth,

Let me with fear and trepidation step in here, if nothing else than to prove once again that fools step in where angels fear to tread.

I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with the brief paragraph you got from Mr./Ms. Withheld. Let's parse the language carefully without jumping to a conclusion which, while arguably rational, may not be correct.

Would it not be true that any old sign which communicates to an entrant that guns are not allowed means the business does not want handguns in their business? [sic] Would not that sign give written notice of that (the owner's desires) to the public?

Neither the sign nor Ms/Mr. Withheld says nor implies that you would be guilty of criminal trespass if you, a CHLer, did carry a concealed weapon into the business. That is, that sign, invalid under 30.06, simply does not operate to make your entry while carrying illegal.

I will speculate, on the basis of long and arduous experience, that a lawyer had a hand in writing that paragraph. It shows all the classic signs of that, along, I suspect, with an anti-gun bias. While it is quite arguably the truth, one without the mysterious skills a lawyer is trained in could easily determine it to be untrue, or, at best, arguably deceptive.

But, in short, I would submit that the paragraph is not untrue. I also doubt that much would be gained by pursuing this with DPS.

With respect,

Jim

[wgoforth]

Coastie, I believe you would be right in your estimation on this. I guess my disgust with this is to find how little the very office that grants our license "has our back." I had hoped they would offer a clear "nope, the business must have a legit 30.06."

Thanks guys!