TexasCHLforum.com

7075-T7 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:(note: I posed the same question in another thread, and realized that it was for this one... whoops)

A lot of confusing information has been brought up in theis thread. If it's "leagl verbal notice" to say no guns in here, and it's not "legal written notice" to have a no guns sign at the door (non 30.06), then is verbal notice held to a higher standard than written?

what I'm trying to get as is the "no guns" (non 30.06) sign legal notice per CHL statutes? I thought I knew the answer, but now I'm confused

No, it is not legal notice in respect to being able to arrest you for criminal trespass. It must meet the 30.06 requirements, be verbal or written notice in 30.06 form that is handed to you (can be smaller in size.)

Oh, Ok. So they can't arrest you, but could still cause trouble if they can tell. Goes back to the "keep it concealed" part right?

Well, they CAN arrest you, but IMO it would be beat in court since you had not been given valid notice until that time.

wgoforth wrote: When she came back, she again stated that if they have let you know verbally, written, or with any wording of sign that guns are not allowed, the a CHL holder is not permitted to carry.

While I KNOW she is wrong, that concerns me greatly that the phone person and a tec at the dept that handles this would both think this.

Is she really wrong? Does anyone else KNOW she is wrong? I suggest that we all read the relevant statutes carefully, that we all read the DPS rep's. quoted words carefully, and that we think about what they both really say, without adding words which are not in the statutes, and that we make up our own minds.

Up above I relayed a suggestion made by a lawyer friend of mine relating to this subject. One can easily say that is just a bunch of lawyer-talk, and it may be. It appears to me, however, that some of our long-term members could talk to a lawyer about this, parfticularly when the issue is one of tying together some statutes and construing just what they mean. Let us not forget that we are stepping into "lawyer-talk" when we dispute an opinion made by a DPS employee who has AG lawyers at her fingertips. Another member has suggested, perhaps in jest, that the DPS rep. may be practicing law without a license. I might suggest that some of our members may be stepping into the shoes of a lawyer without proper authority.

The legislature is full of lawyers. Their lobbyists are heavy on lawyers. A lawyer most likely had a hand in drafting those statutes. And we must also remember that the judge who will hear your case will be a lawyer. I take the liberty of saying again, in a different context, that we should take care that we are not shooting the messenger.

I would suggest that as we read the statutes we focus on words like "entry," rather than whether or not it is permitted to carry a concealed weapon in the premises having a noncompliant sign. According to your report, goforth, the young lady said something like she "would not" carry, not "could not carry." It appears to my friend, mentioned above, that what she is saying is that a compliant 30.06 sign means only one thing -- that a CHL holder can enter the premises carrying a concealed weapon without being thereby guilty of criminal trespass, and that what it does not mean is that a CHL holder is permitted to carry a concealed handgun inside the premises. It then follows that if the owner, or his representative, learns that a ChL holder is armed then he or she may evict him or her after having actual notice of any kind ignored, since he or she is not permitted inside the premises while armed.

Do you honestly believe that even the Texas legislature would tell a business owner that notwithstanding his objection a CHL holder can carry in his premises? Even in Dodge City the tough guys were often told to park 'em at the door.

If my friend is correct, my concern here is not what your opinion is, what your instructor's opinion is, what my opinion is, or what the opinion of our mutual collegues here on the forum is. My concern is really for the newbie, who looks to us for advice based on our knowledge and experience, and, if, once again, my friend is correct, we would be leading the newbie down the wrong path if we convinced him that a 30.06-noncompliant sign authorizes him, while armed, to both enter and remain inside the premises which has the noncompliant sign. And, if my friend is right, the newbie could learn, to his regret, what the law really means when it is explained to him, first by an LEO and then a judge.

With the greatest of respect for all the various opinions we hear here, but some of them may be questionable. I simply offer my friend's suggestion, not his legal advice, as he is not your lawyer nor mine, and he made that clear to me and asks that I make it clear to anyone to whom I quote his suggestion. "A suggestion," not "legal advice."

My question is: what is wrong with his suggestion as I have stumblingly stated it?

Jim

Keith B wrote: Well, they CAN arrest you, but IMO it would be beat in court since you had not been given valid notice until that time.

Absolutely right, Keith. And the operative words in your reply are "until that time".

And then it is a new ballgame.

Jim

57Coastie -- If I understand your point, you are saying...

1) a place is not properly 30.06 posted
2) a CHL holder enters
3) It is detected that he is carrying, he is told to leave by someone in power
4) He refuses based on improper signage
5) He is now guilty of criminal trespass

If that's your argument, I would tend to agree. He is not guilty because of the signage, but because he refused to leave when asked.

PC 30.05(a)(2) "received notice to depart but failed to do so." A Class A or B misdemeanor

Also, PC 30.06 (a)(2)(B) "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart" A Class A misdemeanor.

(Note: it seems there are some words missing between "handgun" and "was"???)

sjfcontrol wrote:57Coastie -- If I understand your point, you are saying...

1) a place is not properly 30.06 posted
2) a CHL holder enters
3) It is detected that he is carrying, he is told to leave by someone in power
4) He refuses based on improper signage
5) He is now guilty of criminal trespass

If that's your argument, I would tend to agree. He is not guilty because of the signage, but because he refused to leave when asked.

PC 30.05(a)(2) "received notice to depart but failed to do so." A Class A or B misdemeanor

Also, PC 30.06 (a)(2)(B) "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart" A Class A misdemeanor.

(Note: it seems there are some words missing between "handgun" and "was"???)

Actually, nothing is missing between "handgun" and "was" .,. what is missing is the earlier portion of the statute which states the opening clause as relates to both (A) and (B). See below for full wording up to that point, including the relevant clauses. Read all together the sentence reads as ...

"a license holder commits an offense if the license holder received notice that remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart"

... of course the other clauses add in conditions to the above sentence, which is why you must be a lawyer (WHICH I AM NOT) and not an English major to properly decode this stuff

Sec. 30.06. 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.

Sec. 30.06. 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.

My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

sjfcontrol wrote: PC 30.05(a)(2) "received notice to depart but failed to do so." A Class A or B misdemeanor

Also, PC 30.06 (a)(2)(B) "remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart" A Class A misdemeanor.

My bad.

Jim

7075-T7 wrote:

Sec. 30.06. 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.

My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

No a gunbuster sign is NOT "Notice" You quit reading too early. You need to continue to the definition of "Notice"

"(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
(8) 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.

The law is very clear in what a "Notice" is and a Gunbuster sign is NOT "Notice"

JJVP wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:

Sec. 30.06. 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.

My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

No a gunbuster sign is NOT "Notice" You quit reading too early. You need to continue to the definition of "Notice"

"(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
(8) 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.

The law is very clear in what a "Notice" is and a Gunbuster sign is NOT "Notice"

Excellent. Sometimes we have to be reminded of the way of.

57Coastie wrote:A lawyer (who has a CHL) once suggested to me that perhaps this is not quite as clear as reading the above posts assume. That is, notice is notice, but a particular type of notice is necessary for a CHL holder to be guilty of criminal trespass. Or, no matter how you are given notice that you are not welcome, then you are not welcome, and you may be denied entrance. Criminal trespass comes into play if the notice is not compliant with 30.06.

Or, if will, nothing in the statutes says that absent notice compliant with 30.06 you are permitted, regardless of the wishes of the business, to carry concealed in the premises.

In sum, In our discussions of 30.06 we may often omit the element of criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is the issue, not the right to enter, once one receives actual notice, in any form, and it is incorrect to say "the sign is worded wrong, so we have the right to enter."

His point would suggest that the broad language used, quite innocently, with respect to 30.06 could result in one being successfully prosecuted for criminal trespass should, as an example, his carrying of a concealed handgun be detected, he is told to get out, and he refuses, on the basis that he had not been given effective 30.06 notice by the noncompliant sign on the door.

Which this unnamed lawyer threw out for me to think about. If he is correct, there is no real difference of opinion here, he would only be criticizing the way the operation of 30.06 is sometimes described.

Cheers,

Jim

He is quite correct. The key work is "refuses". He cannot be prosecuted because he entered a building with a non-compliant sign. He can be prosecuted if he entered the building, was given written or oral notice by someone in authority and then refused to leave.

7075-T7 wrote:My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

Arguably, yes. The argument my friend gave me is that "actual notice," given by any means, with any words, verbal or written, is effective notice that you cannot remain in the premises with a concealed handgun. On the other hand, if you do not speak English, notice given in English, verbal or written, is arguably not "actual" notice. This is true even though you may have lawfully entered the premises.

Where this argument gets to be fun is if a noncompliant sign (a "Gunbuster") is posted on the door, saying, for example, "NO GUNS PERMITTED IN THE STORE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CHL." Since it is noncompliant, you may open the door and enter, but once you are in, haven't you already been given actual notice by the Gunbuster sign, therefore you have to turn around and leave, or, perish the thought, although it was lawful to enter, the fact that you did in fact enter, makes you a trespasser. I personally doubt that even a Texas judge would agree with this, but it is just thrown out to think about.

Questions like this, guys and gals, is how lawyers make a living. And judges also make a living with questions like this, but judges can often decide undecideable questions so as to make the whole package make sense. Happens all the time when there are arguably inconsistent rules.

Whether my lawyer-friend's suggestion is right or wrong, and it is only that, a suggestion, at least we have people now reading the statutes and arriving at a conclusion, and not just parroting, for example, an instructor who may be as dumb as a post -- and I had one of them when I got my first CHL. All he did for 10 hours was tell us what a great shot he was, and then told us the answers to all the written questions.

Jim

PS: I would suggest that all hands take care not to skip over one very important word: Entry -- entry -- entry, etc. Is that not what the 30-06 compliant sign authorizes? And only that?

57Coastie wrote: Where this argument gets to be fun is if a noncompliant sign (a "Gunbuster") is posted on the door, saying, for example, "NO GUNS PERMITTED IN THE STORE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CHL." Since it is noncompliant, you may open the door and enter, but once you are in, haven't you already been given actual notice by the Gunbuster sign, therefore you have to turn around and leave, or, perish the thought, although it was lawful to enter, the fact that you did in fact enter, makes your presence unlawful?

PS: I would suggest that all hands take care not to skip over one very important word: Entry -- entry -- entry, etc. Is that not what the 30-06 compliant sign authorizes? And only that?

You're making my head hurt, Jim. It sounds like you're saying that your friend is saying that any sign is notice, when the statutes say otherwise. That's one thing I'm having trouble with. I'm also having trouble with a compliant 30.06 sign authorizing entry. I thought it prohibited entry of a CHL if one were carrying. I majored in science, not English, so maybe that's one reason for my headache over this.

57Coastie wrote:

7075-T7 wrote:My question: Is "Notice" a Gunbusters sign? Because reading the letter of the law, it would seem like it is.

Arguably, yes. The argument my friend gave me is that "actual notice," given by any means, with any words, verbal or written, is effective notice that you cannot remain in the premises with a concealed handgun. On the other hand, if you do not speak English, notice given in English, verbal or written, is arguably not "actual" notice. This is true even though you may have lawfully entered the premises.

Where this argument gets to be fun is if a noncompliant sign (a "Gunbuster") is posted on the door, saying, for example, "NO GUNS PERMITTED IN THE STORE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A CHL." Since it is noncompliant, you may open the door and enter, but once you are in, haven't you already been given actual notice by the Gunbuster sign, therefore you have to turn around and leave, or, perish the thought, although it was lawful to enter, the fact that you did in fact enter, makes your presence unlawful?

Questions like this, guys and gals, is how lawyers make a living. And judges also make a living with questions like this, but judges can often decide undecideable questions so as to make the whole package make sense. Happens all the time when there are arguably inconsistent rules.

Whether my lawyer-friend's suggestion is right or wrong, and it is only that, a suggestion, at least we have people now reading the statutes and arriving at a conclusion, and not just parroting, for example, an instructor who may be as dumb as a post -- and I had one of them when I got my first CHL. All he did for 10 hours was tell us what a great shot he was, and then told us the answers to all the written questions.

Jim

PS: I would suggest that all hands take care not to skip over one very important word: Entry -- entry -- entry, etc. Is that not what the 30-06 compliant sign authorizes? And only that?

What kind of lawyer is your friend? Has he ever read the applicable statues? Is he a criminal lawyer?

There is nothing inconsistent about THIS statue. It is VERY clear.

It seems to me that the link between notice and compliance with 30.06 sets up the requirements for the state to legally take action against your license. The property owner cannot take action against your license. For example, Store owner posts a sign that says NO GREEN SHIRTS ALLOWED ON PROPERTY. If I walk in wearing a green shirt am I tresspassing? If the property owner sees me in my green shirt and says nothing, has he effectively modified the posted conditions by accepting my presence in the green shirt? If I wear a green shirt beneath by coat am I in compliance with the owner's requirements or am I in violation? I also think there is no acceptance that private property rights provide supreme power to control all aspects of human behavior. Can I require folks to remove their underwear while in my store? Just opening my doors to the public creates some conditions that I should expect to tolerate as a property owner. If I operate a store and someone steals from me can I pursue trespass charges against them. Clearly I do not want thieves as customers, sign or no sign. Bottom line, I think we spend too much time playing the what if game on this issue.

Texgun, the difference in your scenario is that there are no licensing guidelines for shirt color and underwear.