TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Your entire body doesn't intrude on the property owner's property until you exit your vehicle. Therefore the property owner cannot prohibit you from carrying in your car onto his property and then locking the weapon in the car before exiting the vehicle.

Nope, don't buy your argument.

The body is still on the property whether it is in a vehicle or not.

Dangerous to provide someone that advice and have them rely upon it to their possible detriment.

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Your entire body doesn't intrude on the property owner's property until you exit your vehicle. Therefore the property owner cannot prohibit you from carrying in your car onto his property and then locking the weapon in the car before exiting the vehicle.

Nope, don't buy your argument.

The body is still on the property whether it is in a vehicle or not.

Dangerous to provide someone that advice and have them rely upon it to their possible detriment.

Although I think baldeagle has a point and may be correct, the truth is that it isn't real clear, there aren't a lot(any?) of court cases and it could be up to a judge to interpret. This is an untraved road, and could put a chl holder in jeopordy particularly if a car were subject to inspection.

Abraham wrote:O.K.

Anyone here seen a 30.06 posted garage?

If so, where/name of business?

I don't remember exactly which one, but I have seen a 30.06 posted garage at a Dallas hospital.

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Your entire body doesn't intrude on the property owner's property until you exit your vehicle. Therefore the property owner cannot prohibit you from carrying in your car onto his property and then locking the weapon in the car before exiting the vehicle.

Nope, don't buy your argument.

The body is still on the property whether it is in a vehicle or not.

Dangerous to provide someone that advice and have them rely upon it to their possible detriment.

Obviously I disagree. When you are in your vehicle, you are on your property, regardless of where the vehicle is. Once you step out of the vehicle, you are on the property owner's property. If that were not true, then was was entry so clearly defined in the law? "Entry means the intrusion of the entire body." Not part of it. Not most of it.

Maybe Charles could comment?

baldeagle wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Your entire body doesn't intrude on the property owner's property until you exit your vehicle. Therefore the property owner cannot prohibit you from carrying in your car onto his property and then locking the weapon in the car before exiting the vehicle.

Nope, don't buy your argument.

The body is still on the property whether it is in a vehicle or not.

Dangerous to provide someone that advice and have them rely upon it to their possible detriment.

Obviously I disagree. When you are in your vehicle, you are on your property, regardless of where the vehicle is. Once you step out of the vehicle, you are on the property owner's property. If that were not true, then was was entry so clearly defined in the law? "Entry means the intrusion of the entire body." Not part of it. Not most of it.

Maybe Charles could comment?

You can be arrested for trespass in a vehicle. You don't have to exit the vehicle. Where I believe the argument on being able to bypass the 30.06 sign with a gun in your car is that 30.06 does not apply to MPA and you would not be carrying under the authority of your CHL until you exit your car. 30.05 would still apply to you for criminal trespass, even in your vehicle, if the location was posted with a general no trespass sign or you refused to leave when requested since your CHL would not be applicable to carrying at that time, MPA would.

Keith,

Are you saying when in your vehicle MPA takes precedent or in some manner supercedes a CHL?

Abraham wrote:Keith,

Are you saying when in your vehicle MPA takes precedent or in some manner supercedes a CHL?

That is the consensus. Due to the fact you don't need a license to carry in your car, then it would take precedence over licensed carry.

ScottDLS wrote:

SwimFan85 wrote:Trespassing law is not restricted to buildings. A private property owner can give notice that no trespassing is allowed on their forest land, in their corporate executive parking lot, or their land around their chemical plant. Valid 30.06 notice is required to prohibit someone with a CHL from carrying a handgun if that's the reason for trespassing. No specialized notice is required to prohibit rifles, video cameras, or handguns carried under MPA. A simple sign is valid notice.

The parking lot law only protects some employees. It does not protect customers of a business, visitors, delivery people, or vendors, if they park in a free lot provided by a business. It does not protect customers who pay to park in a lot or garage downtown.

I won't connect the dots so I don't provide the checklist for an anti gun company or organization.

Since 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under authority of a CHL, a posted parking lot would only prevent you from exiting the car with your gun. In the car, the MPA allows you carry. If you are afraid that you ARE carrying under the authority of your CHL when driving on the lot, then throw CHL in the trunk. You can't carry under it's authority if it's not on your person.

It looks like some people need the dots connected. A combination sign would cover both situations. The blanket prohibition of firearms covers MPA while the 30.06 notice on the bottom covers CHL.



For those people who insist you can't trespass if you're inside your vehicle, I dare you to drive into a critical infrastructure facility without authorization. Then when they stop you, tell them you're not trespassing as long as you're inside your vehicle. Bonus points if the video is posted on youtube. By you or the AO. LOL

Abraham wrote:O.K.

Anyone here seen a 30.06 posted garage?

If so, where/name of business?

Harris Methodist Hospital, downtown Fort Worth.

Texas Sheepdog wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

SwimFan85 wrote:Trespassing law is not restricted to buildings. A private property owner can give notice that no trespassing is allowed on their forest land, in their corporate executive parking lot, or their land around their chemical plant. Valid 30.06 notice is required to prohibit someone with a CHL from carrying a handgun if that's the reason for trespassing. No specialized notice is required to prohibit rifles, video cameras, or handguns carried under MPA. A simple sign is valid notice.

The parking lot law only protects some employees. It does not protect customers of a business, visitors, delivery people, or vendors, if they park in a free lot provided by a business. It does not protect customers who pay to park in a lot or garage downtown.

I won't connect the dots so I don't provide the checklist for an anti gun company or organization.

Since 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under authority of a CHL, a posted parking lot would only prevent you from exiting the car with your gun. In the car, the MPA allows you carry. If you are afraid that you ARE carrying under the authority of your CHL when driving on the lot, then throw CHL in the trunk. You can't carry under it's authority if it's not on your person.

It looks like some people need the dots connected. A combination sign would cover both situations. The blanket prohibition of firearms covers MPA while the 30.06 notice on the bottom covers CHL.

[ Image ]

For those people who insist you can't trespass if you're inside your vehicle, I dare you to drive into a critical infrastructure facility without authorization. Then when they stop you, tell them you're not trespassing as long as you're inside your vehicle. Bonus points if the video is posted on youtube. By you or the AO. LOL

That combination sign wouldn't "connect the dots" for me, since it's inside, not in a parking lot, less than 1" letters, etc. I've only seen one property that was theoretically posted per 30.05 and 30.06 on the parking lot and that was Texas Instruments in Dallas.

Critical infrastructure facility is irrelevant as it' simply a penalty enhancement under 30.05, which carrying a handgun would get you anyway. If you entered without authorization, you would have had to...

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

...in order to be guilty of criminal trespass.

See the link in my signature for the opinion of another LEO on this forum from back in time.
Summary: While under MPA, 30.06 doesn't apply.

BTW, I just sat in on my wife's renewal class last Monday, and I heard Crossfire say, for the umpteenth time, that 3006 signs at the parking lot entrance do not have force of law because the parking lot is not "premises." She even included pictures of a sign she saw, and recounted the conversation she had about the sign with a poorly informed security guard. I'm not going to say that she's wrong or right, but she certainly knows more than I do about this stuff.

30.06 specifically refers to property, not premises. The only mention of premises is the final section:

"(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."

ScottDLS wrote:

For those people who insist you can't trespass if you're inside your vehicle, I dare you to drive into a critical infrastructure facility without authorization. Then when they stop you, tell them you're not trespassing as long as you're inside your vehicle. Bonus points if the video is posted on youtube. By you or the AO. LOL

Critical infrastructure facility is irrelevant as it' simply a penalty enhancement under 30.05, which carrying a handgun would get you anyway. If you entered without authorization, you would have had to...

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

...in order to be guilty of criminal trespass.

I think his argument is that someone can commit trespass even if they stay inside their car.

You are all forgetting that 30.05 has a part that reads as follows:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and

(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

So, walk with me here. If you're in your car, and see a 30.06 sign on a parking lot:

-30.06 applies while carrying under CHL
-CHL is an exception to 46.02
-46.02 doesn't apply in your car due to MPA, therefore you are not carrying under CHL, and 30.06 does not apply. You are currently carrying under the exception to 46.02.

So, we fall down to general trespass, 30.05 in this case.

-30.05 says it does not apply if "the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden" and
-The person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

Note, not under it's AUTHORITY, simply that you are carrying both on your person. That is an important difference. It's the same verbiage that requires you to show your CHL to an officer, even if you're not carrying under it's authority. So therefore, 30.05 doesn't apply in that case either.

Now, 30.05 Will instantly apply if they ask you to leave, or post a sign that you are not allowed, for ANY other reason, but not for the reason of carrying a handgun. Eg, a 'No White Cars' sign, with you driving a white car WOULD apply.

It's a weird situation where there is absolutely no way they can ask you to leave for simply the handgun, because the law does not allow them to.