Private Comany Signage

[elwood blooz]

As I was making sales appointments yesterday, I came across several signs saying weapons of any kind are not permitted on the property. Does this fall under proper notification or do private companies have to post the proper 30.06 signs?

TIA

[sjfcontrol]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

[elwood blooz]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

That"s what I thought, just wanted to clarify. Appreciate it.

[LJM]

Legally i agree that they are the only signs to worry about. However several companies I deal with have a no guns rule in the master sevice agrrement between my company and theirs. Again no legal rmification but my company would not be invited back on their property and could cost many $$$ worth of business. Just my opinion.

[canvasbck]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

Chemical plants and refineries are also verbotten under federal law, no 30.06 sign required.

[lowonair]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

Chemical plants and refineries are also verbotten under federal law, no 30.06 sign required.

where did you get this info? if i am correct they arent under federal law at all.

[Significant Otter]

Legally i agree that they are the only signs to worry about. However several companies I deal with have a no guns rule in the master sevice agrrement between my company and theirs. Again no legal rmification but my company would not be invited back on their property and could cost many $$$ worth of business. Just my opinion.

Good point. If Elwood is visiting existing customers, it's a good idea to know their policies. However, for new customers, there's no existing relationship and it's highly unlikely they will know of his legally carried handgun if it's concealed.

[canvasbck]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

Chemical plants and refineries are also verbotten under federal law, no 30.06 sign required.

where did you get this info? if i am correct they arent under federal law at all.

I'll find the cite for you and post later. Under DHS, chemical plants and refineries have been deemed "critical infrastructure" by DHS and firearms are not allowed inside secure areas. IANAL, but I am the head of security at a chemical plant that is under MTSA regulations. I have read the law, but I don't have it immediately available.

[elwood blooz]

Legally i agree that they are the only signs to worry about. However several companies I deal with have a no guns rule in the master sevice agrrement between my company and theirs. Again no legal rmification but my company would not be invited back on their property and could cost many $$$ worth of business. Just my opinion.

Good point. If Elwood is visiting existing customers, it's a good idea to know their policies. However, for new customers, there's no existing relationship and it's highly unlikely they will know of his legally carried handgun if it's concealed.

These are all new customers, when I have to go to chemical plants or ports I lock my weapon in the safe before I leave. And no, no one will know that I carry, only a select few few outside my circle of trust know that I carry.

[dicion]

30.06 and 51% are the only signs that CHL holders need to be concerned with. (Outside of Federal property.)

Chemical plants and refineries are also verbotten under federal law, no 30.06 sign required.

where did you get this info? if i am correct they arent under federal law at all.

I'll find the cite for you and post later. Under DHS, chemical plants and refineries have been deemed "critical infrastructure" by DHS and firearms are not allowed inside secure areas. IANAL, but I am the head of security at a chemical plant that is under MTSA regulations. I have read the law, but I don't have it immediately available.

Please do post a reference as soon as possible.

No offense, but until I see the actual federal regs, It's hogwash in my book.
It it does, indeed, turn out to be true, then it is something CHL instructors and pretty much everyone else on this forum needs to know.

[LarryH]

Look at PC 30.05 Criminal Trespass, especially the references to "critical infrastructure facility".

[tacticool]

Look at PC 30.05 Criminal Trespass, especially the references to "critical infrastructure facility".

Then read a little further in 30.05 about concealed handgun licenses.

[LarryH]

f1 and f2 are connected by an "and" so both clauses have to apply.

TRESPASS is forbidden in critical infrastructure facilities, whether you have a handgun/CHL or not, as I read the paragraph.

If that's wrong, I'm open to being convinced.

[sjfcontrol]

30.05 does not apply to chl holders. Chl holders must be prosecuted under 30.06

30.05 f1 and f2 say you have a defense to prosecution -- if the reason you trespassed was because you were carrying a gun -- and -- you have a license to do so. Therefore 30.05 does not apply to license holders (UNLESS the trespass was NOT due to carrying)

ianal

[jester]

TRESPASS is forbidden in critical infrastructure facilities, whether you have a handgun/CHL or not, as I read the paragraph.

If that's wrong, I'm open to being convinced.

I agree you shouldn't jump the fence at a critical infrastructure facility. However, if I enter through a normal entrance and they allow me in, I'm not trespassing.