TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Wait there are blind CHL holders?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;
and (2) received notice that:
(A) entry on t he property by a l icense holder with a concealed
handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on t he property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
(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 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of 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 c oncealed handgun”; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one
inch in height; and (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the
public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) 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 i s not a pr emises or other place on w hich the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

AEA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Learn something every day!

To the point, I'm probably wrong but I thought they had to post signs in sight of all entrances. If not pragmatically I'm not seeing the harm unless you're incorrect in your CHL dress (aka, reveal).

What many are missing is the possibility of you having to defend yourself or others in a 30.06 location. You gonna go in and shoot if necessary?

You gonna not go in and go somewhere else where your legal shooting action would not incur additional charges?

Get what I mean? Yes, concealed is concealed until you actually have to use it.

RottenApple wrote:Lots of threads lately about 30.06 signs, effective notice, etc. one thing that keeps coming up is a kind of "but I didn't see it" defense. I.E. - A business posts a valid 30.06, but its towards the rear of the inside of the store, on the front of the building away from the entrance, at some entrances but not others, etc. Regardless of the exact location, the sign is clearly visible to the public, but it doesn't jump out and smack you when you approach/enter the building.

So I'm kinda curious about this "defense". It seems to me that the mall/police/DA only has to prove that the posted location is valid. I.E. - that the sign meet all requirements, including being in a location "conspicuous to the public" (which, sadly, has no legal definition). Assuming that they do, would it then not be up to the defendant to prove that they didn't receive notice because they didn't see the sign?

Ooh. And what about a blind CHL holder? Would ANY sign be considered effective notice???

Now, I'm not interested in the "moral" or "ethical" obligation that some feel necessary to obey in regards to invalid postings. Y'all have your opinion (which i respect) and i have mine. And I suspect we aren't gonna change each others minds about that. I'm only curious about this "I didn't see it" defense.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd proffer we're more discussing the ramifications of accidentally going into the location in a n on critical event situation. If it comes down to a have to use situation, I'd proffer that signs/warnings whatever are the least of your worries, no?

2firfun50 wrote:To the original subject, I think the "didn't see it" defense has a big hole. As with many legal notices, authorities just have to prove they sent, provided, delivered the notice. I don't know of any circumstance where one must prove you read it and and understood the notice. The post office returns a lot of registered mail every year. The purpose is to demonstrate the notice was sent. Meets the burden of proof of providing legal notification.

I'm not a lawyer, but have experience with a wayward child.

TexasCajun wrote:For all the attention that this is getting lately, can someone point to an actual arrest and/or conviction under 30.06???

I have no personal knowledge of either. According to DPS reports for 2002 through 2006, no CHL has been convicted of violating TPC §30.06. The reports don't show trespass, §46.03, §46.035 and other prohibited locations individually, they are reported collectively as "Places Where Weapons Prohibited."

I have to admit I'm surprised it hasn't happened even once.

Chas.

ldj1002 wrote:You get a ticket forgoing 70 in a 60 zone because you didn't see the sign will get you off about the same as carrying in a business because you didn't see the sign. I don't think any of you would use the didn't see the sign for speeding but you will for chl. I don't understand the difference.