Invalid 30.06 Discussion

[redlin67]

I know that I have talked about this place before, but I still smile a little whenever I see it. At the AMC Willowbrook, there is a small 8"x11" set of 30.06 signs in english and spanish. The are on the right side entrance way above the doors. Very hard to see unless you are looking for them and almost impossible to read unless you stand almost directly beneath them and look up. I know that they are there, but I think it would be difficult to prosecute with the way they are posted. I just go in the left entrance, therefor I am ingnorant to any kind of notice.

[snatchel]

AMC in Parks Marll, Arlington is posted in the bottom left corner of the ticket booth. I knew they had one somewhere... but it took me 10 minutes to find it. I didn't carry becuase I expected a larger, direct sign. I could have avoided it and pleaded ignorance if I had used the automated ticket machines...

[speedsix]

Ron, would you ask your LEO friend if a gunbuster sign is enough? It clearly states the business owners intent.

...much as I love the police...I don't ask 'em what the law is...I often know better than a lot of them do...I take the time to read it...

I would hope and expect his friend to say that the gunbuster sign was not enough. If he does he has fallen into the trap. If he says that it must be the correct wording then the follow up question would be to ask why is the wording critical, but the size is not.

Or he could just be tremendously stubborn.

...speaking from personal experience, cops are often stubborn, yepper they are...

[ralewis]

As a new CHL holder (2 months) I find these discussions quite entertaining. Personally, I let my common sense guide me and follow one simple guideline. "If I can't carry, you pay me." If I see a sign that gives me even a whiff that a CHL holder is not welcome, I take my business elsewhere. I know there are exceptions such as areas clearly addressed in the law, but it works well in everyday activities. The majority of business I need to conduct can be done with businesses that want my money.

It really bothers me that CHL holders present an attitude that its ok to go somewhere they aren't welcome just because the I's aren't dotted, or the T's aren't crossed. Real BGs walk free with the same attitude only to continue to present a threat to society. We all may make mistakes and inadvertently miss a sign. It happens. I don't mind "no carry" at gun shows, too much opportunity for a negligent discharge.

If we behave ethically, we set a higher standard for the general population and will be much more successful in our journey.

I'll get off my soapbox now

I understand your sentiment, and I too find these discussions entertaining. There are in fact a lot of entertaining oddball cases we face due to ambiguous laws and circumstances that don't seem to fit neatly into one of the defined 'places prohibited to carry'.

However, there is a very specific way a private property owner can use to very specifically communicate to a CHL holder that they may not carry. I expect them to do that just as much as I hold myself accountable for knowing the use of deadly force and carry laws commensurate with holding a CHL. The legislature saw fit to be very specific with what the language and size needed to be. If a private property owner has not followed that specification, then they have not done what the Statutes have indicated is required to prevent a CHL holder from carrying.

I respect your view that we need to set a standard and example (if for no other reason than to educate the public that CHL holders are good, law abiding, trustworthy folks when viewed as a group), but my first concern is being 100% legal in my carry behavior.

FWIW, my first CHL instructor from 6 years ago had a sign that was an apparent compliant sign but the letters was 15/16 inches vs 1 inch. He was adamant that it was not a compliant or enforceable sign.

[speedsix]

If the business owner's intent was to keep CHL holders from entering while armed, then he should have followed the law, at least that's what I hope the judge's attitude would be. That's something I hadn't considered in prior debates, most of which have stopped, with a great deal of confidence, at the officer being (wrong, over enthusiastic, under informed) with the assumption that the judge would set it right. So suppose the judge is nominally anti-rights, or an activist who thinks that all signage should be obeyed without regard for legislative intent.

Once again I find my own attitude reinforced: If there is a 30.06 sign, no matter how non-compliant; Stop! Do not enter; Card them, find out the owner's name and mailing address, etc and let them know you are boycotting them and why, and if their sign is not compliant, educate them, even if it means they decide to comply and put up a real sign, they are anti-rights and don't deserve your business.

And for those of you who think that the non-compliant signs are just a way for pro carry folks to cater to the antis with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" posting that will make everyone happy, here's another scenario.

You are patronizing the establishment with the non-compliant sign, and Mrs. DooGood is there with her little brat running out of control while mom ignores it. Brat comes charging up and head butts you right on the holster, pulling your cover garment away so that all may see your carry piece. Brat goes crying to mommy, "Dat nasty person hav a gun and hit me wid it." and mommy, not management, calls the cops. The cops get there, and you explain the situation, and it only takes a couple of minutes of observation to note that the kid has since head butted one officer, mommy three times, and a wall, for them to decide you didn't threaten anyone and refuse to arrest.

But they did notice the sign on the way in, and despite their sympathy for the situation that led to it, arrest you for violating the 30.06 sign.

Nope, they don't deserve my money.

I have had a similar scenario with a child running wild in Home Depot, who rammed me in my harmonica pocket, denting my C harp, and went crying to mommy that I hurt him. (I really do carry several harmonicas, in my Tru-Specs, right thigh pocket.)

...that is not a scenario...that is a dream...what a reach!!!...principles still stand...carry within the law, like we are supposed to, and if it happened like you painted it...a principle still applies...cops are to ENFORCE the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...NOT as THEY feel about it...they have no more business arresting me for carrying where there is a non-compliant sign than they would for writing me a ticket for going past a purple sign with 35 MPH written on it...the same law that tells me to follow the speed limit prescribes what the speed limit sign SHALL look like...if it doesn't...I haven't broken the law...you can dream up any number of WHAT IF situations...bottom line is did I follow the law??? did the posting store??? that's why we HAVE law...so we both know where we stand...and the cops have to follow THE LAW, too...they have no authority to arrest us when we haven't broken a law...and if we have backbone, they can be punished in court for doing it...we don't live in a police state...and we don't have to run scared...when will we all realize this?????????

...as to your C harp...carry a BUG instead and the kid'll get a headache but you'll suffer no loss...

[bayouhazard]

I don't know of a CHL holder getting convicted for violating a REAL 30.06 sign unless they were doing something else stupid. That's not a suggestion to ignore signs but it's one reason I don't go looking with a fine tooth comb.

I had discussion with a retired LEO acquaintance who teaches CHL regarding 30.06 notice. I made the statement that invalid signs are not enforceable though adding that "you may not beat the ride, but you most likely would earn the rap". Specifically, we were discussing a national pizza chain for kids that now has 30.06 signs, correctly worded in both English and Spanish, in block letters in contrasting colors. However, the letters are not at least 1" in height as required by 30.06 but about 1/2". This person was adamant that it doesn't matter. The judge is going to ask did you read the sign and if so then you understood what they meant, and therefore have been given effective notice (especially since I mentioned that I actually measured the sign in question). I said that I would never say that I measured a sign if arrested... that's volunteering information no one but my attorney needs. I said I do the following when entering any building and this is what would be in my statement and/or testimony: I always look for a sign that has contrasting block letters that are at least 1" in height. If I don't see any, I don't continue to look further.

I was then told that people with CHL's have been convicted even though signs are not compliant. "Judges don't care if a sign is compliant or the intent of the law. They care if you saw the sign." My point is even if you have a judge that ignores the statute, an appeals court or Texas Supreme Court would (hopefully) overturn a conviction where a judge clearly ignored the statute. I gave up trying to convince the person since we were leaving. I would have asked for the cases where someone has been convicted with a non-compliant sign but I was getting the impression that this was "LEO interpretation" of the law (no offense meant officers).

So, does anyone know of a CHL holder being convicted in Texas for violating a non-compliant 30.06 sign? Does anyone agree that an invalid sign is still legally enforceable as effective notice?

Thanks,

Ron

[LSL]

As a newbie -- I want to be very careful, so I look and I look again. But two questions to add to the discussion.

1) Sunday, I was in an ice house which serves food as well as beer & spirits over the weekend. While NOT carrying, I walked all three entry doors and and saw no "30.06" nor "51%" signs. I also looked inside -- no signage that was taught at my CHL class.
As I left at the end of the day, I did see a small -- it would fit inside an 8 inch circle -- "No handguns allowed" sign.
By law, this means nothing ... . Also, expecting a "51%" sign and not seeing one -- here comes the question --
Q1 - How am I suppose to know LEGALLY whether a CHL carry is forbidden?

2) Searching the forum for threads re: Reliant Park / Houston Rodeo / Reliant Center -- etc., I see conflicting posts.
**** My question excludes times of Professional/High School or College Sporting events in the stadium. ****

Searching and looking this Harris County owned facility -- entry gates, doorways, entrances -- all over the place, I find no "30.06" signs of any size.
Above one entryway at Reliant Center -- about 18 feet above the ground -- there is a "Rules" list that includes: "Subject to search;" "No ticket reselling;" "Must show proof of age to by alcohol;" "Shirts and shoes;" and "No outside food or drinks," "no illegal drugs," "no laser pointers allowed."

In that list is a line that reads:
"Weapons of any kind including possession of a handgun under the Authority of the Texas Concealed Handgun License Law are not permitted." Again, no signage that was taught at my CHL class.

Q2- Is CHL licensed possesion of a firearm permitted in Reliant Park / Reliant Center / Reliant Arena [i.e., nonsporting events not in the stadium]?

[Teamless]

Q1 - How am I suppose to know LEGALLY whether a CHL carry is forbidden?

You could ask to see their liquor license, it will show "SIGN = RED" or "SIGN = BLUE" on it
Or
check for the license ahead of time, if you know you are going somewhere
http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/PublicInquiry/Status.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Try to not be too specific in the name search, like if you live in my area, and are searching for "TIME OUT # 2" if you type it just like that, it may not find it, but if you just type in "Time Out" it lists all of them

Also, I assume All Ice Houses are 5%

Q2- Is CHL licensed possesion of a firearm permitted in Reliant Park / Reliant Center / Reliant Arena [i.e., nonsporting events not in the stadium]?
Technically speaking, I think it would be, however, should they decide to search you, or pat you down, they can deny you entry and will possibly call the security / police.
Should they be able to ban it, in a non-sporting event, no. Can they, yes - much like when they ban with the proper 30.06 notification at Pasadena Convention Center when they have a gun show.... they are not supposed to be able to do that, but until someone wants to be the test case, well, there is no fighting it

[ralewis]

As a newbie -- I want to be very careful, so I look and I look again. But two questions to add to the discussion.

1) Sunday, I was in an ice house which serves food as well as beer & spirits over the weekend. While NOT carrying, I walked all three entry doors and and saw no "30.06" nor "51%" signs. I also looked inside -- no signage that was taught at my CHL class.
As I left at the end of the day, I did see a small -- it would fit inside an 8 inch circle -- "No handguns allowed" sign.
By law, this means nothing ... . Also, expecting a "51%" sign and not seeing one -- here comes the question --
Q1 - How am I suppose to know LEGALLY whether a CHL carry is forbidden?

2) Searching the forum for threads re: Reliant Park / Houston Rodeo / Reliant Center -- etc., I see conflicting posts.
**** My question excludes times of Professional/High School or College Sporting events in the stadium. ****

Searching and looking this Harris County owned facility -- entry gates, doorways, entrances -- all over the place, I find no "30.06" signs of any size.
Above one entryway at Reliant Center -- about 18 feet above the ground -- there is a "Rules" list that includes: "Subject to search;" "No ticket reselling;" "Must show proof of age to by alcohol;" "Shirts and shoes;" and "No outside food or drinks," "no illegal drugs," "no laser pointers allowed."

In that list is a line that reads:
"Weapons of any kind including possession of a handgun under the Authority of the Texas Concealed Handgun License Law are not permitted." Again, no signage that was taught at my CHL class.

Q2- Is CHL licensed possesion of a firearm permitted in Reliant Park / Reliant Center / Reliant Arena [i.e., nonsporting events not in the stadium]?

Reliant Center (like the Cedar Park Center) is City owned correct? 30.06 notifications by a public entity have no force of law by a public entity. Unless there is a sporting even (or execution, court, or voting) I see no reason why you can't carry there. I've carried at Cedar Park center for non-sports events. And there is a 'no guns' sign at the entrance.

[RPB]

I know that I have talked about this place before, but I still smile a little whenever I see it. At the AMC Willowbrook, there is a small 8"x11" set of 30.06 signs in english and spanish. The are on the right side entrance way above the doors. Very hard to see unless you are looking for them and almost impossible to read unless you stand almost directly beneath them and look up. I know that they are there, but I think it would be difficult to prosecute with the way they are posted. I just go in the left entrance, therefor I am ingnorant to any kind of notice.

AMC in Parks Marll, Arlington is posted in the bottom left corner of the ticket booth. I knew they had one somewhere... but it took me 10 minutes to find it. I didn't carry becuase I expected a larger, direct sign. I could have avoided it and pleaded ignorance if I had used the automated ticket machines...

no, don't plead ignorance that there was a notice, but you'd plead that no notice was received according to 30.06 :)

an offense can only be committed if notice is received (which doesn't mean what it sounds like)
30.06 contains all of the conditions under which notice is received.
There are no other conditions not listed under which notice is received.


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49683#p609854" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(2) received notice that:

-------------------------

One can be ignorant of a proper legally enforceable compliant sign which is posted in a conspicuous location as per the Statute ... and claiming ignorance will go as far as claiming you didn't see a properly posted speed limit sign.

But, if the conditions upon which an offense is committed are that you must receive notice ...
and

"(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if ..."

then one receives notice upon fulfillment of those listed conditions, whether you are aware of it or not ... so if a person who only speaks Chinese or is deaf, gets an oral notice or doesn't know what the valid enforceable sign says, he/she is ignorant of the notice but received it ... therefore an offense is committed ...

but if notice wasn't received, (according to the things specified) because the conditions listed in 30.06 (a person receives notice if ...) were not met .... no offense.


"not receiving notice" does not mean I couldn't read the big sign, I went in a different entrance, I didn't hear the owner say go away, I only speak Russian ... nor any other reason for "ignorance of the notice"

"Not receiving notice" means none of the things listed/enumerated in 30.06 "a person receives notice if" were fulfilled.
====================

Sorry ... 25 years as a legal Assistant made me picky about what laws "say" .
I ain't (contraction of am not) a lawyer, but that's how I read it.
My layman's opinion
I could be wrong ... I was once ... hence, I'm divorced.

[v-rog]

I hate ambiguous signs .... took me 3 days to drive from Houston to Austin because every few miles was this sign "Clean restrooms ahead" and after cleaning them all I was sooo tired ....

I don't want to have to guess a business owner's intent ... that's why the Statute list the elements "that notice must be received" (not that the intent on a sign must almost convey the owner's wishes) then lists the exact conditions under which "notice is received"

Nothing vague or ambiguous or confusing about it.
If they want to post a 30.06 sign, they can, the specifications are simple and all listed on one place.
If they instead wish to post anything else, necessarily conveys to me that it's a "feel good sign" and the owner wishes that I'd be armed but be quiet about it so people "feel good"

[mikeintexas]

As a new CHL holder (2 months) I find these discussions quite entertaining. Personally, I let my common sense guide me and follow one simple guideline. "If I can't carry, you pay me." If I see a sign that gives me even a whiff that a CHL holder is not welcome, I take my business elsewhere. I know there are exceptions such as areas clearly addressed in the law, but it works well in everyday activities. The majority of business I need to conduct can be done with businesses that want my money.

It really bothers me that CHL holders present an attitude that its ok to go somewhere they aren't welcome just because the I's aren't dotted, or the T's aren't crossed. Real BGs walk free with the same attitude only to continue to present a threat to society. We all may make mistakes and inadvertently miss a sign. It happens. I don't mind "no carry" at gun shows, too much opportunity for a negligent discharge.

If we behave ethically, we set a higher standard for the general population and will be much more successful in our journey.

I'll get off my soapbox now

My CHL is up for renewal next year, so I too could be considered a "newbie" at CHL. However, just as you and I are held to lawful standards on all the CHL laws, so should someone wishing to prohibit the carrying of lawful weapons by CHL holders. The statue says that the 30.06 sign must be in block letters, 1" tall, with contrasting colors and be in English and Spanish. If they do not care enough to present proper notice, that is not my problem. A 30.06 sign on a sheet of 8 1/2" by 11" paper isn't proper notice because there is not enough room to make the letters 1" tall.

Ethics has everything to do with this. If a person or company wishes to be ethical and follow the law, they have the duty to follow the letter of the law, not just the part they feel like following. That is like carrying to a house of worship, a nursing home or hospital. Without 30.06 at the places, I have no ethical duty to not carry because no notice or improper notice was was given.

I also have a lawyer friend that said if I or someone I know gets caught in an improper 30.06 situation to let him know. He would be glad to take up the case.

Off my soapbox now...

[apostate]

It really bothers me that CHL holders present an attitude that its ok to go somewhere they aren't welcome

You mean like the Greensboro Four?

[jimlongley]

If the business owner's intent was to keep CHL holders from entering while armed, then he should have followed the law, at least that's what I hope the judge's attitude would be. That's something I hadn't considered in prior debates, most of which have stopped, with a great deal of confidence, at the officer being (wrong, over enthusiastic, under informed) with the assumption that the judge would set it right. So suppose the judge is nominally anti-rights, or an activist who thinks that all signage should be obeyed without regard for legislative intent.

Once again I find my own attitude reinforced: If there is a 30.06 sign, no matter how non-compliant; Stop! Do not enter; Card them, find out the owner's name and mailing address, etc and let them know you are boycotting them and why, and if their sign is not compliant, educate them, even if it means they decide to comply and put up a real sign, they are anti-rights and don't deserve your business.

And for those of you who think that the non-compliant signs are just a way for pro carry folks to cater to the antis with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" posting that will make everyone happy, here's another scenario.

You are patronizing the establishment with the non-compliant sign, and Mrs. DooGood is there with her little brat running out of control while mom ignores it. Brat comes charging up and head butts you right on the holster, pulling your cover garment away so that all may see your carry piece. Brat goes crying to mommy, "Dat nasty person hav a gun and hit me wid it." and mommy, not management, calls the cops. The cops get there, and you explain the situation, and it only takes a couple of minutes of observation to note that the kid has since head butted one officer, mommy three times, and a wall, for them to decide you didn't threaten anyone and refuse to arrest.

But they did notice the sign on the way in, and despite their sympathy for the situation that led to it, arrest you for violating the 30.06 sign.

Nope, they don't deserve my money.

I have had a similar scenario with a child running wild in Home Depot, who rammed me in my harmonica pocket, denting my C harp, and went crying to mommy that I hurt him. (I really do carry several harmonicas, in my Tru-Specs, right thigh pocket.)

...that is not a scenario...that is a dream...what a reach!!!...principles still stand...carry within the law, like we are supposed to, and if it happened like you painted it...a principle still applies...cops are to ENFORCE the law AS IT IS WRITTEN...NOT as THEY feel about it...they have no more business arresting me for carrying where there is a non-compliant sign than they would for writing me a ticket for going past a purple sign with 35 MPH written on it...the same law that tells me to follow the speed limit prescribes what the speed limit sign SHALL look like...if it doesn't...I haven't broken the law...you can dream up any number of WHAT IF situations...bottom line is did I follow the law??? did the posting store??? that's why we HAVE law...so we both know where we stand...and the cops have to follow THE LAW, too...they have no authority to arrest us when we haven't broken a law...and if we have backbone, they can be punished in court for doing it...we don't live in a police state...and we don't have to run scared...when will we all realize this?????????

...as to your C harp...carry a BUG instead and the kid'll get a headache but you'll suffer no loss...

I don't see any reach, much less a dream, I have seen similar situations occur regularly enough to just change the words and put "gun" where something else was and have a perfectly plausible scenario.

And while I agree that the LEOs are supposed to enforce the laws as written, but far too many examples of LEOs interpreting the law, uneducated in the law, or flat out ignoring the law exist to blithely assume that they will just take your word for the law. For example, the Grapevine police officers who have said they will enforce Grapevine Mills Mall's improper signage, PISD's SRO statement that he would enforce the improper signage in front of the school, and many others. And how about the DA down in Houston who swore to prosecute people protected under the new MPA law? And the cops in Philly hassling the guy for carrying openly? Too many examples exist, and lots of them follow just the scenario I proposed.

Yes, the bottom line may actually be that you followed the law and they didn't, but getting to that bottom line might take a while.

[Zylo_X]

2firfun50 I concur. Improper signs are 'effective notice' that they don't want my business, and these can be entertaining discussions ( )

I certainly understand and agree that 'legal means legal' for signs, just as 'concealed means concealed' for us, but here is a question I haven't seen here yet. If you don't go straight to the business owner/operator and educate them about the sign, aren't you 'escalating'?? If you're willing to risk the ride because you think you can beat the bill by a fraction of an inch, how does that NOT violate our first rule??