TexasCHLforum.com

cjlandry wrote:

carlson1 wrote: I am not for sure why you think it would be a court case if they are not posted. Can you enlighten me a little please? It is my understanding that hospitals used to be completely off limits, but now they are like any other place, they must post the 30.06 just like Churches etc. . .

Here's the actual wording:

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

You might get to be the test court case if it was one of those that says "It is a defense to prosecution....", but in this case it simply does not apply.

Just remember that, if someone verbally tells you that "you're not allowed to carry here", you've been given notice. You can't argue with them that "Yes, I can, because you don't have the 30.06 sign". (Not to mention the fact that you've obviously failed to conceal).

I concur.

carlson1 wrote:I am not for sure why you think it would be a court case if they are not posted. Can you enlighten me a little please? It is my understanding that hospitals used to be completely off limits, but now they are like any other place, they must post the 30.06 just like Churches etc. . .

I think Mr. Landry cleared it up better than I did. Thanks CJ.

IF the law prohibits a local government owned building from being posted, how can you be given verbal notice you are not allowed to carry?

Maybe I'm confused.

Chuck

txinvestigator wrote:

cjlandry wrote:

carlson1 wrote: I am not for sure why you think it would be a court case if they are not posted. Can you enlighten me a little please? It is my understanding that hospitals used to be completely off limits, but now they are like any other place, they must post the 30.06 just like Churches etc. . .

Here's the actual wording:

"(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

You might get to be the test court case if it was one of those that says "It is a defense to prosecution....", but in this case it simply does not apply.

Just remember that, if someone verbally tells you that "you're not allowed to carry here", you've been given notice. You can't argue with them that "Yes, I can, because you don't have the 30.06 sign". (Not to mention the fact that you've obviously failed to conceal).

I concur.

cxm wrote:IF the law prohibits a local government owned building from being posted, how can you be given verbal notice you are not allowed to carry?

Maybe I'm confused.

Chuck

Chuck:

You are correct, but there is an exception when the location is a prohibited location under TPC §§46.03 or 46.035. A governmental entity can use TPC §30.06 to keep armed CHL's off such property, either by a 30.06 sign, written paper handed to the CHL, or by verbal warning. Such locations include government owned hospitals.

Regards,
Chas.

Here is the operative language:

TPC §30.06:

(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.

TPC 46.035:

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:


(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;