30.06 and Written Permission Permitting Carry

[MeMelYup]

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.

Your church has posted 30.06 signage?

[Keith B]

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.

Your church has posted 30.06 signage?

Doesn't matter for him now, he has been told no carry which is valid.

[treeman]

Thought he said he now has written permission? What do you mean no carry?

[rdwilson]

Your church has posted 30.06 signage?

This is not the church that I attend. They are clients and I am considered a contractor. I do lot of work with non-profits.

[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.

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

You are correct and I had not thought about that. 30.05 would apply to the retired officer, but it then raises the interesting legal question of whether a 30.06 sign specifically forbidding a CHL from carrying would be considered effective notice for the retired officer. As with other cases, I do not think I would want to be the test case or recommend anyone else take that position.

[thetexan]

To commit an offense under 30.06 one must carry a handgun on the property of another

1. Without effective consent and
2. Received notice as defined in 30.06 that entry with a handgun was forbidden or that, if already on the property, that you failed to depart once notified that remaining on the property was forbidden.

Both elements are required for the 30.06 prohibition to be effectual.

If there is a 30.06 sign posted but the owner says "come on in with your concealed handgun" there is effective consent and both elements of 30.06 have not been met. If there is no 30.06 sign and the owner is known to be anti gun but he has not notified one correctly then both elements of 30.06 have not been met. (Notwithstanding other statutory prohibitions that may apply).

So if one has a letter from the owner or one operating with the authority of the owner giving one effective consent one would not be acting without effective consent and both elements of 30.06 would not have been met. A prosecutor would not then be able to prove a violation which requires both elements.

Tex

[VMI77]

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?

People who think signs can protect people are what's called "magical thinkers." Seems to be a lot of them around these days.

[VMI77]

ant 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.

You could get them in trouble that way, shooting a bad guy, who then sues because he relied on their sign assuring him that no guns were present except his.

[ScottDLS]

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?

Nope, same exemption to 30.06 is also available in 30.05 to active/retired peace officer.

[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?

Nope, same exemption to 30.06 is also available in 30.05 to active/retired peace officer.

Do you have a reference? It isn't in PC 30.06.

Upon further review, I think 30.05 also applies to retired LEO. There is not a non applicability/exception clause for retired LEOs in 30.05, just for active LEOs.

The benefit retired LEOs have is fewer restrictions on places (bars, etc) they are allowed to go but trespass laws still apply for retired LEOs.

Need references!!

[ScottDLS]

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?

Nope, same exemption to 30.06 is also available in 30.05 to active/retired peace officer.

Do you have a reference? It isn't in PC 30.06.

Upon further review, I think 30.05 also applies to retired LEO. There is not a non applicability/exception clause for retired LEOs in 30.05, just for active LEOs.

The benefit retired LEOs have is fewer restrictions on places (bars, etc) they are allowed to go but trespass laws still apply for retired LEOs.

Need references!!

Good point. As Steve R says the 30.05 exemption is technically for "Peace Officers" not retired Peace Officers. SO, I'll go back to the 30.05 notice requirements... 30.06 doesn't apply since Retired LEO are not carrying under authority of CHL... Just LEOSA and 46.15 exemptions. 30.05 requires a trespass sign so a commercial business typically wouldn't have one posted.

I know we have a 1995 (anti-gun Democrat) Texas AG opinion stating that "any" (crayon with a circle slash revolver) sign counts as notice under 30.05, but that was before 30.06 and I'm going to say that's a really hard case even for a Travis County DA to make... I'm of the opinion ...haha... that 30.05 is not a blanket crime that can apply to all violations of a publicly open property owners "rules", which may or may not be clearly posted/communicated in advance. In a public setting, my thought is the 30.05 is intended to allow a property owner require someone to leave for any reason, but not to bar their entry in advance.

Other than the 1995 AG opinion I have seen no evidence that Texas PC 30.05 has been interpreted to create a crime out of legal carry (licensed or otherwise) in an otherwise allowably accessed premises. Many other states have very similar criminal trespass statutes and have never interpreted them to prohibit otherwise legal activities, regardless of signage. Also, so far not aware of any 30.05 convictions between 1995-1997 (when 30.06 came in) for carry.

[C-dub]

Apparently the governing board has determined that a 30.06 sign is necessary to protect the building's occupants.

Welcome to the forum.

The following question is not directed at you and is really a rhetorical. And from another thread, the above is word use that drives me up a wall. Just who do they think they are protecting themselves from? A group of people that is just as and maybe more law abiding than the police? The thought that posting a 30.06 is needed to protect the occupants or employees makes me

[rdwilson]

Apparently the governing board has determined that a 30.06 sign is necessary to protect the building's occupants.

Welcome to the forum.

The following question is not directed at you and is really a rhetorical. And from another thread, the above is word use that drives me up a wall. Just who do they think they are protecting themselves from? A group of people that is just as and maybe more law abiding than the police? The thought that posting a 30.06 is needed to protect the occupants or employees makes me

Agreed. And I know that I am "preaching to the choir" here. The problem remains and I have stated this to the folks in charge. Placing the signs in NO WAY protects the persons on the property. In fact, it tells the bad guys, who will not abide by the law anyway, that any potential victims will not be able to offer any effective resistance if attacked. The signage can actually make the persons *less* safe that they might be otherwise.

Update: I have now written permission to carry on the property. And thanks for the welcome to this forum.

[mr1337]

You can't fix stupid.