TexasCHLforum.com

I soppose it doesn't matter, I saw this sign at the Community Family Center in Texas City. The property appears to be owned by either the City or the State and has the following verbage.

Pursuant to Section 30.06 Penal Code (Trespass by holder of licence to carry a concealed handgun)
A person licenced under 4413 (29ee), Revised Statues (concealed handgun law),
may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.

Just wondering, "Was this Verbage ever legal?" When?

This is at 2000 Texas Ave. I haven't posted to texas3006.com yet, cause I want to find out who owns the property first.

Now that is an old sign! When HB2909 passed in 1997 creating Tex. Penal Code §30.06, the original concealed-carry statute had not been codified in Chapter 411 of the Government Code. Therefore, it (§30.06) referenced the concealed-carry law as it existed in the "Black Statutes," i.e. Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes.

No, it is not valid and hasn't been for years. Also, the Harris County DA mentioned that §30.06 signs would have to change as of Jan. 1, 2016. (I believe it was Devon Anderson that said that, but it could have been HPD Chief McClelland.)

Chas.

Thanks Charles, I'm wondering if its worth challanging as an illegal sign.. I'm pretty sure it is government property, and there is no court in the building that I can tell. But I think most CHL holders would just carry on anyway.

About 2 months ago I went in a hospital (NEAR Austin) that was built within the last 5 years. They had the 4413 29(ee) sign up on the front door. The sign was outdated before it was put up, outdated before the building it is on was ever built. perhaps that particular sign was used on purpose by someone ... I'm not saying a thing, wouldn't want to get anyone fired or in trouble. IMHO, if I had been licensed under 4413 (29ee)(if it still existed, which it no longer does) I would have had to leave my HANDGUN outside, so I'm glad I was licensed under Chapter 411 Gov't code ...and not licensed under 4413 29(ee) ... so that sign was not addressed to me as recipient of that message, and I don't read other people's mail.... So, I just left my concealed rifle in the car at that hospital (which I carry at hospitals that post valid 30.06 and 30.07 signs), the handgun is lighter weight.

Liberty wrote:Thanks Charles, I'm wondering if its worth challanging as an illegal sign.. I'm pretty sure it is government property, and there is no court in the building that I can tell. But I think most CHL holders would just carry on anyway.

Brings up an interesting question: if a municipality posts an old, out-dated 30,06 sign can they be fined? And if not what would keep them from posting them now?

Tracker wrote: Brings up an interesting question: if a municipality posts an old, out-dated 30,06 sign can they be fined? And if not what would keep them from posting them now?

I have one concern about pushing this issue, Inside there is a Clinic, a UTMB clinic. While its not a Hospital, nor can I see how its a school, The clinic is one of several services offered inside this building... While we can push the issue and probably get the sign taken down.. To do so would run the risk of have the invalid sign replaced by a proper 30.06 and 30.07.

That wording is what is at the front of most Katy Mills Mall (Simon Properties) entrances.

I carry there because it's clear to me that they have no problem with it since they didn't bother to change their signs.

Scott in Houston wrote:That wording is what is at the front of most Katy Mills Mall (Simon Properties) entrances.

I carry there because it's clear to me that they have no problem with it since they didn't bother to change their signs.

Grapevine Mills took theirs down.

Tracker wrote:

Liberty wrote:Thanks Charles, I'm wondering if its worth challanging as an illegal sign.. I'm pretty sure it is government property, and there is no court in the building that I can tell. But I think most CHL holders would just carry on anyway.

Brings up an interesting question: if a municipality posts an old, out-dated 30,06 sign can they be fined? And if not what would keep them from posting them now?

Yes, they can still be fined:

GC §411.209 wrote:GC §411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.
(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:That wording is what is at the front of most Katy Mills Mall (Simon Properties) entrances.

I carry there because it's clear to me that they have no problem with it since they didn't bother to change their signs.

Grapevine Mills took theirs down.

REALLY??? Wow

That was the single most discussed place on here for so long and Simon is notoriously anti-2A. How did that happen?
That's awesome.

Scott in Houston wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Scott in Houston wrote:That wording is what is at the front of most Katy Mills Mall (Simon Properties) entrances.

I carry there because it's clear to me that they have no problem with it since they didn't bother to change their signs.

Grapevine Mills took theirs down.

REALLY??? Wow

That was the single most discussed place on here for so long and Simon is notoriously anti-2A. How did that happen?
That's awesome.

The new giant 3'x3' bronze ones probably haven't arrived in the mail yet.

Pawpaw wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Liberty wrote:Thanks Charles, I'm wondering if its worth challanging as an illegal sign.. I'm pretty sure it is government property, and there is no court in the building that I can tell. But I think most CHL holders would just carry on anyway.

Brings up an interesting question: if a municipality posts an old, out-dated 30,06 sign can they be fined? And if not what would keep them from posting them now?

Yes, they can still be fined:

GC §411.209 wrote:GC §411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.
(b) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state that violates Subsection (a) is liable for a civil penalty of:

Thanks. It ought to expressly prohibit gun buster signs too. Airports are unique in that inside the building is both municipal and federal jurisdictions (Begins at security check in). When I asked the question last night I was inside Love Field to pick someone up. I had to walk through the gun buster sign with the wording "carrying a gun is prohibited." Love is Dallas city property.

Tracker wrote:Thanks. It ought to expressly prohibit gun buster signs too. Airports are unique in that inside the building is both municipal and federal jurisdictions (Begins at security check in). When I asked the question last night I was inside Love Field to pick someone up. I had to walk through the gun buster sign with the wording "carrying a gun is prohibited." Love is Dallas city property.

Anyone who has a license should know stuff like that has no meaning to them.

Pawpaw wrote:

Tracker wrote:Thanks. It ought to expressly prohibit gun buster signs too. Airports are unique in that inside the building is both municipal and federal jurisdictions (Begins at security check in). When I asked the question last night I was inside Love Field to pick someone up. I had to walk through the gun buster sign with the wording "carrying a gun is prohibited." Love is Dallas city property.

Anyone who has a license should know stuff like that has no meaning to them.

Yeah but it can cause unnecessary confusion. We have reciprocity with other states who don't have the equivalent 30.06. Keep things symple.

I feel it necessary to mention that IIRC, the secure section of an airport is off limits to CC, but does not have to post. If you were picking up a friend, I realize you were probably not in that section. Just thought i would mention it.