30.06 and Written Permission Permitting Carry

[rdwilson]

I apologize if this exact question is already been answered but I can not seem to find an answer that fits my situation.

I am a contract IT worker and one of the locations where I occasionally work will be posting a 30.06 sign in the near future. I advised them that I do not feel safe because they are advertising to the bad guys that this is a gun free zone and would be "easy pickings" for some nut job to shoot up the place without fear of an armed response. In addition to that, I usually perform my work after normal business hours and on weekends where building is mostly vacant. Apparently the governing board has determined that a 30.06 sign is necessary to protect the building's occupants.

I advised them that I would no longer to perform work at that location due to their prohibition of handguns by CHL holders. Given that I am retired police and have passed a background check performed by that business, the highest authority at that particular location has no problem with me carrying my concealed handgun while on the property in question.

I understand that written permission exempting me from the 30.06 may allow me to legally carry. Is this true? If so, it there a template or example document that has passed muster in judicial proceedings? Can anyone point me to such a document?

[mr1337]

If you're retired police, you may qualify to carry there regardless of the 30.06 sign due to the LEO Safety Act.

However, there is no text in Texas Penal Code 30.06 that provides an exemption for carrying if you have permission from the property owner. Written permission should prevent prosecution if you were ever found out. The property owner would choose not to pursue trespass charges.

But, like I said, if you qualify under LEOSA, I'd probably just go that route instead of worrying about written permission, unless you just want the explicit blessing of the property owner/manager.

Also, welcome to the forum!

[mr1337]

After doing a little research, LEOSA may not provide the level of exemption that I thought it did:

Exception: "the laws of any State that permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property"

Meaning laws that prohibit concealed carry on private property could still be enforced.

So I guess with that in mind, you would want to seek written permission from the property owner/manager. However, just be aware that 30.06 does not specifically mention an exemption for oral or written permission.

[rdwilson]

Thanks for the quick reply. I am aware of the LEOSA but I have not met the important requirement to:

"during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers".

I still have my TCLEOSE card and "photographic identification" issued by my former department but neither state that I have qualified in the last year.

I had scoured the relevant Texas statutes and found no official "exemption" to the 30.06 rule hence my question posted here. And yes, I would prefer to have written permission although I have already had verbal assurances that it is OK to carry.

[mr1337]

With the absence of specific verbiage allowing it with written permission, I would say the SAFEST bet would be to seek legal counsel from a lawyer. Specifically one that focuses on firearm laws.

Is it out of the question to try to convince the guy/gal to not put up the 30.06 signs? I could almost understand putting the sign up to appease anti-gun groups like MDA, but I just can't understand someone putting one up to deter crime. Remember that the definition of criminal is someone who doesn't follow the law, so the sign wouldn't affect criminals. It only affects the law abiding. But you already know all this. Think you could convince the property owner?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Even with a 30.06 sign posted, you can be given permission to entered while armed. This happens at almost every gun show.

Written permission is not required, but it would be proof should it ever be needed. For example, you shoot someone while on the employer's property and he decides to deny having given you permission.

Chas.

[rdwilson]

The governing board of the organization has the opinion that "no one needs to have a gun on the property". I suspect this is another misguided attempt to deter crime and "insure the safety" of visitors.

A reasonable and prudent man would recognize the fact that criminals and insane persons don't read signs or follow the rule of law. The man in charge is very reasonable, supports my concealed carry, but he is subject to a governing board and the rules that they concoct.

Contacting an attorney that specializes in gun laws is the best advise given. Thanks for that. But I don't want the financial burden of paying the fees.

I was working there last Friday night until 11:30 PM and there are many things that go bump in the building at that time of night. Not to mention loading up all of my equipment alone in a big empty parking lot. Being able to defend myself is a big plus in terms of peace of mind.

I think that perhaps I will write a letter to the organization stating that they will need to find another technician to work on their server and network as I no longer am welcome on their property. I do not feel safe in a "gun free" facility as it tells all of the potential attackers that they will face little opposition. The whole idea of concealed carry is to deter crime by placing doubt in the minds of criminals.

BTW, thanks for the welcome to this board. I have been lurking for some time but, until now, have not had a reason to post.

[Hindenburg]

Sec. 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 the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

If you have consent to be there with a gun you're not trespassing. A wise man would get that in writing. If they won't put it in writing, I wouldn't push the issue. Plenty of fish in the sea.

[gljjt]

Sec. 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 the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

If you have consent to be there with a gun you're not trespassing. A wise man would get that in writing. If they won't put it in writing, I wouldn't push the issue. Plenty of fish in the sea.

^^^^^ding, ding,ding, we have a winner!^^^^^

[srothstein]

Actually, I think it is even easier, if he just goes out and qualifies with the weapon. PC 46.15(a)(5) allows a retired peace officer to carry anywhere an active officer can. Since the OP would then not be carrying under the authority of the CHL, 30.06 would not apply.

[gljjt]

Actually, I think it is even easier, if he just goes out and qualifies with the weapon. PC 46.15(a)(5) allows a retired peace officer to carry anywhere an active officer can. Since the OP would then not be carrying under the authority of the CHL, 30.06 would not apply.

But wouldn't 30.05 still apply to a retire LEO?

[misterlarry]

OP - I think your best response is to no longer provide IT services to them if you can afford the loss of business or can pick up other business to replace it. It is the only way that these people learn how misguided their attempts at improving safety are.

[RogueUSMC]

OP - I think your best response is to no longer provide IT services to them if you can afford the loss of business or can pick up other business to replace it. It is the only way that these people learn how misguided their attempts at improving safety are.

nailed it...

[bayouhazard]

Actually, I think it is even easier, if he just goes out and qualifies with the weapon. PC 46.15(a)(5) allows a retired peace officer to carry anywhere an active officer can. Since the OP would then not be carrying under the authority of the CHL, 30.06 would not apply.

But wouldn't 30.05 still apply to a retire LEO?

I'm not sure about retired, but the carpetbaggers and quislings in Austin made sure Yankee cops could run roughshod over the property rights of Texans.

[rdwilson]

Thanks everyone for the input.

Yes, my first instinct was to tell them that, I am not welcome on their property, do not feel safe, and to find someone else. We discussed it today and I now have written permission. Problem solved. In addition, I have a key and the alarm code so I would suppose that the property is "under my control" to some extent. This is fairly common in my business as no one want to stick around until the wee hours of the night while I work on the computer network. I usually get to know the cleaning crews quite well.

Except as you all know... Posting the sign tells the bad guys and whack jobs it is open season on unarmed civilians.

One thing that I didn't mention because I didn't want to cloud the issue with religion, is the place in question is a church. This is clearly covered in Penal Code - Sec. 46.035 (b),(6)

In my mind churches are a more tempting target and are at a higher risk because;
a.) a large number of people gather in one place,
b.) there is always someone that disagrees with their particular doctrine no matter what religion it happens to be, and
c.) religion seems to be a "hot button" in some folks minds so I worry about the mentally ill becoming violent.

I discussed this with the pastor and he agrees with my assessment but the Council (or whatever they call it at this particular church) has made this decision.