Sign at entrance to property (not door)

[Keith B]

.....DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent.....

I totally agree that any no gun sign posted, 30.06 or otherwise, shows their intent to prevent guns in their business. HOWEVER, the law has specific requirements for the sign or other legal notification. So, while they may have intended to prevent me from carrying, since they failed to meet the legal guidelines I can legally carry there. It's no different from me; I intend to do a lot of things, but fail to properly carry through with a lot of them.

[sjfcontrol]

.....DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent.....

I totally agree that any no gun sign posted, 30.06 or otherwise, shows their intent to prevent guns in their business. HOWEVER, the law has specific requirements for the sign or other legal notification. So, while they may have intended to prevent me from carrying, since they failed to meet the legal guidelines I can legally carry there. It's no different from me; I intend to do a lot of things, but fail to properly carry through with a lot of them.

Don't give me a ticket, officer. I intended to stop at the red light.
I intended to stay under 60 MPH.

Or, with this administration, I intended to pay my taxes. (Oh, wait, that worked.)

[nightmare]

the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.

Edit: unless they have a CHL...then it's a DEFENSE under 30.05.

If the weapon is a concealed handgun and they have a CHL that's a 30.05 defense but NOT a 30.06 defense. Having a CHL is no defense for having a shotgun or other weapon the property owner prohibits.

Looking back to the OP, that looks like effective notice for both 30.05 and 30.06 on the sign.

[MeMelYup]

The sign implies that there are special premises for LEO and security.

[jimlongley]

Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.

And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.

[ScottDLS]

the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.

Edit: unless they have a CHL...then it's a DEFENSE under 30.05.

If the weapon is a concealed handgun and they have a CHL that's a 30.05 defense but NOT a 30.06 defense. Having a CHL is no defense for having a shotgun or other weapon the property owner prohibits.

Looking back to the OP, that looks like effective notice for both 30.05 and 30.06 on the sign.

[ Image ]

The 30.06 doesn't apply to a CHL because definition of "premises" does not include parking lots. <----Edit. I was wrong. It's because if you keep gun in your car and have a CHL, PC 30.06 doesn't apply because you're carrying under MPA, not "authority of CHL". And 30.05 DEFENSE still applies becaue you HAVE a CHL.

[ScottDLS]

Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.

And I disagree with DPS. If the law says 55 and you get ticketed for 56, too bad, but likewise if the law says 1 inch and it's not . . .

Part of it is a where do you draw the line question. Last time I was at the 6th Floor Museum they had a little sign, about 3" x 5" and a metal detector and pointing out to them that their sign did not comply had absolutely no effect, it was their intent to keep out CHL holders. Plano Independent School District signs at the parking lots are under size, but according to my research they had them printed on a standard size sign to save money, and it is their intent to prevent CHL holders from entering. Consulting the local LEOs revealed that they intended to enforce the signs even if they were not compliant, which is what generated the call to DPS with the response that the intent was what they intended to enforce, not the law.

I, personally, would like to see language added to the law to the effect that signage that does not comply with the letter of the law will be considered null and void, or some such.

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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 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.

[sjfcontrol]

Scott -- better re-read 30.06. There is no mention of premises, it's "property".

[ScottDLS]

Scott -- better re-read 30.06. There is no mention of premises, it's "property".

True, however when I re-read 30.06

... 1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;...

If you keep gun you're car, you are not carrying "under the authority" of CHL, but you still are covered by MPA... And the 30.05 DEFENSE to prosecution still doesn't go away as long as you HAVE a CHL.

[sjfcontrol]

Scott -- better re-read 30.06. There is no mention of premises, it's "property".

True, however when I re-read 30.06

... 1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent;...

If you keep gun you're car, you are not carrying "under the authority" of CHL, but you still are covered by MPA... And the 30.05 DEFENSE to prosecution still doesn't go away as long as you HAVE a CHL.

OK, that is a different argument than you were making earlier. My statement was only regarding your 30.06/premises statement.

[jimlongley]

. . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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 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.

Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.

[gljjt]

. . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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 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.

Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.

That's what they say. Here is what they have written. http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/312 ... LEGAL).pdf. Top of page 6.

[Keith B]

. . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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 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.

Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.

That's what they say. Here is what they have written. http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/312 ... LEGAL).pdf. Top of page 6.

Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting the link.

Jim, they have clarified it. I believe there is a letter from the head of security for PISD that states they are aware the 30.06 signs are not enforceable in the parking lots or grounds unless a school sponsored activity is taking place.

[jimlongley]

. . .

Plano ISD 30.06 sign size is irrelevant, as is their intent... because Plano ISD is a government entity AND the definition of "premises" in (edit) 46.035 does not include parking lots.

CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
...
(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 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.

Not according to PISD, they are "independent" and therefore not a government entity.

Of course all of this is moot without a test case.

That's what they say. Here is what they have written. http://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/312 ... LEGAL).pdf. Top of page 6.

Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting the link.

Jim, they have clarified it. I believe there is a letter from the head of security for PISD that states they are aware the 30.06 signs are not enforceable in the parking lots or grounds unless a school sponsored activity is taking place.

Interesting, and I note that the date of the aforementioned document is since the last time I communicated with them, at which time they reiterated that they are not a government entity and thus not subject to that portion of the law and that their opinion was that their non-compliant signs were good enough.

Good to know today because my wife's retirement party is this afternoon and I will be parking in the parking lot.

[gljjt]

If they are not a governmental entity, I'm sure the citizens of Plano would like to have their tax dollars back and reimbursement for past election expenses. /sarcasm off.