Email legal notification to prohibit carry?

[VMI77]

The 1st party is the HR person who delivered official notification. The 2nd party is the contact person inside that company who received official notification from the 1st party. Your coworker is a 3rd party relative to that notification, and thus may not have received official notification - depending upon whether or not the law considers the 2nd party to have had the authority to deliver official notification. You, however, are the 4th party, and you have not received official notification. Instead, you've received an unofficial written notification based on a questionably official written notification, which was in turn based on the original official oral notification. Unless that person of authority in the HR department informed you directly, you have received no such notice; and pending absence of any 30.06 signs at the entrances, you're good to go from a legal standpoint. It's up to you whether you are comfortable with that or not.

I pretty much agree with your reasoning here, and also, based on my knowledge of the other organization, I don't consider the contact there to be a person of authority. However, I also agree with Charles in that I am unwilling to assume the risk of testing the law, so I won't carry there.

[Kevinf2349]

Not speaking as a CHL holder here just as an IT professional.....

The problem with email is that there is no expectation of timely or even assured delivery of a message. Proof that one was sent is not proof that one was actually recieved. Even though a return reciept is requested, there is no garuantee that one will be. That is just the nature of the email beast...it is 'best efforts'.

Now would I carry if I got such an email...No, probably not, but I doubt very much that the company would really have a legal leg to stand on, except that you posted that you got the email on a public forum now ....of course judges are now making up their own laws these days so who knows.

[Purplehood]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

[Hoi Polloi]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

Why would an email be verbal notice? It's written notice.

[Oldgringo]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

Why would an email be verbal notice? It's written notice.

My e-mails are not written unless I choose to print them. Why I can even delete them and deny ever having received them - even with sendors read receipt requested.

In this electronic age of e-mails, texting, I-pods, etc., written still means written as in words on paper...I think.

[dicion]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

I don't think so. It depends on how it's defined.... Let me see what I can find.

[Hoi Polloi]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

Why would an email be verbal notice? It's written notice.

My e-mails are not written unless I choose to print them. Why I can even delete them and deny ever having received them - even with sendors read receipt requested.

In this electronic age of e-mails, texting, I-pods, etc., written still means written as in words on paper...I think.

I don't think so. I can electronically sign bills and legal documents.

Tex. Business and Commerce Code §43.001 et seq.
There's a lot more to it, but it says in part that "If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law."

The entire point of the law was to put e-mail and e-commerce on equal footing with pen-and-ink writing. While whether or not it was valid written notice would depend on application, there is nothing that would make e-mail verbal notice or not considered written that I can find.

[dicion]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

I don't think so. It depends on how it's defined.... Let me see what I can find.

Alright, according to the statute:

"(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

It says ORAL or Written. Not Verbal

oral
adj \ˈȯr-əl, ˈär-\
Definition of ORAL
a : uttered by the mouth or in words : spoken <oral traditions>
b : using speech or the lips especially in teaching the deaf

If he doesn't physically Say it, from his mouth, to you, it's not oral. In that case, email could only be considered written communication, which has to conform to 30.06 language requirements.
So no, an email from your boss, to you, not in 30.06 specific language, does not count as legal notice.

[sjfcontrol]

Email is verbal notice -- it uses verbs.
Email is not ORAL notice. That's what the CHL laws use to differentiate from written.

[Oldgringo]

If my boss sent me an e-mail saying that Firearms are not allowed on Company premises, wouldn't that still count as verbal notice despite it not fulfiling the requirements of 30.06?

Why would an email be verbal notice? It's written notice.

My e-mails are not written unless I choose to print them. Why I can even delete them and deny ever having received them - even with sendors read receipt requested.

In this electronic age of e-mails, texting, I-pods, etc., written still means written as in words on paper...I think.

I don't think so. I can electronically sign bills and legal documents.

Tex. Business and Commerce Code §43.001 et seq.
There's a lot more to it, but it says in part that "If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law."

The entire point of the law was to put e-mail and e-commerce on equal footing with pen-and-ink writing. While whether or not it was valid written notice would depend on application, there is nothing that would make e-mail verbal notice or not considered written that I can find.

Yes, I pay my bills on line too. I also delete a lot of unknown e-mails without opening. I also use the "Block Sender" function of Outlook Express.

Notices, instructions, directions, love letters, etc. are meaningless until they are "RECEIVED" by the addressee. "Receipt" is the missing word.

IANAL either, but if I didn't receive it, I didn't get it. IOW, "I don't know who you think you sent it to, but I never got it".

[seamusTX]

Some of y'all just don't get it.

Assuming you don't end up like Erik Scott, you don't get to explain to the cops why they can't arrest you. You get to pay a lawyer $400 an hour to explain to the DA why the charges should be dropped, or to explain to a judge why they should be dismissed.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

- Jim

[Keith B]

I am not a lawyer, BUT, Texas § 30.06 (b) states: For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

Email is written communication, not oral. TPC § 30.06 (c) (3) states it must be in the form of 30.06 to be legal written notification. So, IMO (IANAL) the notification would not be held as legal notification per 30.06 unless the wording was valid. See the whole statue below

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.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

[Purplehood]

Alright, according to the statute:

"(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

It says ORAL or Written. Not Verbal

oral
adj \ˈȯr-əl, ˈär-\
Definition of ORAL
a : uttered by the mouth or in words : spoken <oral traditions>
b : using speech or the lips especially in teaching the deaf

If he doesn't physically Say it, from his mouth, to you, it's not oral. In that case, email could only be considered written communication, which has to conform to 30.06 language requirements.
So no, an email from your boss, to you, not in 30.06 specific language, does not count as legal notice.

Why are you ignoring your own quote above? Oral or written...you have received notice. That is my whole point. If Joe-Don-Boss sends you an e-mail saying you can't carry, you have received notice.

[dicion]

Why are you ignoring your own quote above? Oral or written...you have received notice. That is my whole point. If Joe-Don-Boss sends you an e-mail saying you can't carry, you have received notice.

No, you have not.

Sorry, I thought you knew the rest of the statute. Written communication is very strictly defined in the next lines:

(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

So unless the email had the exact wording above, it is not 'written communication'

Jim: Yes, I know that no matter what the law states, you can be arrested (falsely) and have to pay for it. I also agree to cover up and shut up. But right now we're just debating the technical legality of it, not what someone Should do in this situation.

[Hoi Polloi]

Alright, according to the statute:

"(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication."

It says ORAL or Written. Not Verbal

oral
adj \ˈȯr-əl, ˈär-\
Definition of ORAL
a : uttered by the mouth or in words : spoken <oral traditions>
b : using speech or the lips especially in teaching the deaf

If he doesn't physically Say it, from his mouth, to you, it's not oral. In that case, email could only be considered written communication, which has to conform to 30.06 language requirements.
So no, an email from your boss, to you, not in 30.06 specific language, does not count as legal notice.

Why are you ignoring your own quote above? Oral or written...you have received notice. That is my whole point. If Joe-Don-Boss sends you an e-mail saying you can't carry, you have received notice.

Notice, but not necessarily legally valid notice.

It goes on to say what is required for each to be valid.
Oral=spoken. No requirements on what exactly is said.
Written=30.06 language written down exactly and delivered to you somehow.
Sign=30.06 language written down exactly, 1" or larger block letters, contrasting colors, conspicuous placement, in English and Spanish.