Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Bring. It. On.Charles L. Cotton wrote:If you have to rant and attack everything and everyone you don't like or agree with, then go to tx.guns; you'll love it there.
I think you are exactly correct, those signs are aimed at CHL holders. And for me, at least, it is a pretty effective deterrent. I don't need the hassle. I might feel differently if my own kids had to go there, but they don't.frankie_the_yankee wrote:
But a deterrent to who? A rampage killer? A gang banger?
It looks to me that these screechy signs are "aimed" at the CHL'er, who just happens to belong to the most law-abiding segment of society.
I don't think "crazy" is quite the correct word.
Like you, I have roots in the far north east. I have seen a lot of this attitude there, even among my own family members. It seems to be a belief that guns as objects are evil and dangerous. Crazy seems to fit pretty well, actually.
I'm sorry, but how do you come to that conclusion? For a hospital to be off-limits it must post per 30.06, I agree with. But I see nothing in the code that says it is an exception to 30.06 if the property is owned or leased by a government entity, unless that property is used as a hospital. Unless you're talking about federal property (ie. VA hospitals), but they're not off-limits by Texas law, but by federal law.Liberty wrote:There are exceptions. For example, a hospital can be government owned. It is legal to carry in a hospital unless it is 30.06 posted. In this case the 30.06 sign is valid on Government property.
I don't think anyone who wouldn't carry there, because of the signs, shouldn't carry at all because of it. When I first started carrying I was unsure because I was ignorant of exactly what the law allowed. I knew about proper signs and all. I just didn't know when it came to certain situations like schools and events. It isn't easy to understand the difference between federal and state law when the info we get from most of the major media is slanted against any carry. That misinformation puts doubts into peoples heads even though they think they know they can carry. Since most err on the side of caution, they don't carry. Beyond that, it seems nothing but lazy not to find out. Ignorant isn't bad. Ignorant and lazy is and I agree that anyone who is both ignorant and lazy should consider not carrying. That is my opinion anyway.Liberty wrote:While I understand and agree with Frankie and Stevie on this one, I also take a Darwinistic perspective on this also.
Anyone who sees that sign and is discouraged from carrying, probably not only shouldn't be carrying there, but at all. Supposedly all CHLers spent a conciderable amount of time sitting in a class learning about when and where they are permited to carry. and the consequences of carry, and self defence. Those who come away from such a class without a basic understanding of the rules and laws probably shouldn't carry until they get a better understanding. The schools in effect are performing an educational function and potentially keeping the ignorant disarmed.
As I see it anyone who is intimidated by those signs probably doesn't understand the law well enough to be safely carrying.
I also find it hard to believe that the school district didn't know what they were doing when they posted the signs. The school districts I'm familiar with don't do anything without talking to their legal council. They are within their legal rights to post these signs. It might be deceptive but it is legal.
It is illegal to carry in a government owned hospital that has the proper 30.06 signs posted. 30.03 does not apply to government owned property so I cannot charge you under it, BUT 46.035 says it is illegal to carry in a hospital if it has the 30.06 signs. Therefore, I would charge you with unlawfully carrying by a CHL holder. Tis is how I see this section of the law, and I could be wrong, of course. I just think this is what the legislature intended from the way the law is written.barres wrote:I'm sorry, but how do you come to that conclusion? For a hospital to be off-limits it must post per 30.06, I agree with. But I see nothing in the code that says it is an exception to 30.06 if the property is owned or leased by a government entity, unless that property is used as a hospital. Unless you're talking about federal property (ie. VA hospitals), but they're not off-limits by Texas law, but by federal law.Liberty wrote:There are exceptions. For example, a hospital can be government owned. It is legal to carry in a hospital unless it is 30.06 posted. In this case the 30.06 sign is valid on Government property.
My brain hurts.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.
It's actually simple, like Steve explained: the CHL wouldn't be charged with PC 30.06 "Trespass by a license holder", but with PC 46.035 "Unlawful carry by a license holder".seamusTX wrote:This is an interesting situation that will have to be resolved by case law, if ever.
PC §46.035(b)(4) says that CHL holders cannot carry weapons in hospitals.
PC §46.035(i) says that hospitals are not off-limits unless posted with a 30.06 sign. This clause was added several years after 46.035 was originally passed into law.
PC §30.06(e) saysMy brain hurts.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.
- Jim
The key is the phrase, "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section," in 30.06.barres wrote:But PC46.035 requires effective notice under Section 30.06 for hospitals to be prohibited. How can effective 30.06 notice be given at a location where 30.06 has no effect?
No! TexasCHLforum was started to give people a place to get away from tx.guns. I want no part of it.seamusTX wrote:I would like to see more participation in tx.guns, and I would love to cut loose on certain topics that I don't discuss here.
Charles, will you allow links from this forum to tx.guns?
Yep, thats why one of the reasons our recent Negligent Discharge case here at the GRB wasn't charged...KBCraig wrote:It's actually simple, like Steve explained: the CHL wouldn't be charged with PC 30.06 "Trespass by a license holder", but with PC 46.035 "Unlawful carry by a license holder".seamusTX wrote:This is an interesting situation that will have to be resolved by case law, if ever.
PC §46.035(b)(4) says that CHL holders cannot carry weapons in hospitals.
PC §46.035(i) says that hospitals are not off-limits unless posted with a 30.06 sign. This clause was added several years after 46.035 was originally passed into law.
PC §30.06(e) saysMy brain hurts.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.
- Jim
PC 30.06(e) makes 30.06 inapplicable in government buildings. It doesn't affect 46.035.
