TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

Mr.ViperBoa wrote:Does it make a difference if it is a county hospital like Parkland or John Peter Smith if you can carry or not?

It's not supposed to, but Parkland is a different situation. I don't know what the truth is with Parkland. It is a county hospital, which should make it government property and therefore we should be able to carry away. However, it is also a teaching hospital and attached to UTSWMC. I'll walk by incorrect signs and into any other hospital that is not posted, but not this one. I just don't know and can't afford to find out.

Yeah, Parkland and other hospitals affiliated with a medical school are enough of a gray area that I won't carry there. It's up in the air whether they would be considered a school under 46.03, and I'm not going to risk a felony charge.

sjfcontrol wrote: It never fails to amaze me the number of people that are afraid of doing stuff that simply is not illegal. You do stuff that IS illegal every day, and don't think twice about it. Why sweat the stuff that isn't illegal?

A bit OT, but this emphasizes how over criminalized our society has become. While it is often said that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," that assumes that the law can be understood by the common man. Today the law has become so complex, especially at the federal level, that many otherwise legal acts can be interpreted as crimes.

An example of this is the prosecution of John Edwards. While he is undoubtedly one of the lowest forms of slime, the prosecution relies on a completely novel interpretation of the campaign finance laws by the Feds, one that was never even imagined when the statute in question was enacted.

As Beria, Stalin's head of the secret police, said, "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime."

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:If I recall correctly, Charles has said there has never been an arrest (or maybe never been a successful prosecution?) for a 30.06 violation.

Here is the only thread that I know about where a person was arrested for a 30.06 violation at a hospital. Ultimately, the DA did not prosecute.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12754&hilit=bedford&start=150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like the hospital was claiming that an employee had been given written notice (signage not an issue in this case). She was caught carrying because she left her gun in her unattended purse - just plain stupid IMHO.

So it doesn't look like there has been a single case of someone being arrested for carrying past a valid sign much less a non-compliant sign.

Are we making a mountain out of Cedar Hill? Not sure how concerned we should be about something that has never happened.

Regarding the original post...

-IF- they find your gun...
-IF- they ask you to leave...
-IF- you refuse to leave...
-IF- you meet all of those requirements...

You deserve to be arrested!

Even if the sign is not compliant, they have to find your gun. If they find your gun, they will ask you to leave. So leave. If you don't leave, you are in violation of 30.06 and SHOULD be arrested.

Photoman wrote:Regarding the original post...

-IF- they find your gun...
-IF- they ask you to leave...
-IF- you refuse to leave...
-IF- you meet all of those requirements...

You deserve to be arrested!

Even if the sign is not compliant, they have to find your gun. If they find your gun, they will ask you to leave. So leave. If you don't leave, you are in violation of 30.06 and SHOULD be arrested.

Just to clarify ...

IF a sign is vaild/enforceable and
IF you walk past the valid/enforceable sign
YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW
with a valid/enforceable PC 30.06 no one needs to "ask you to leave" first. You are in violation of the law the moment you enter the building.

Photoman's IF series above would apply to anyplace posting an invalid/unenforceable sign (or no sign at all).

Basically YOU as a CHLee carrying your gun are in violation of PC 30.06 ...

• IF you walk past a valid/enforceable sign
• IF you fail to leave immediately upon being told orally by someone with apparent authority that you cannot have a gun on premises
• IF you fail to leave immediately upon being given a valid/enforceable written notification of PC 30.06 other than a sign (e.g. a pamphlet, employee handbook, ticket stub, 8x11 piece of paper, hand-written exactly as stated in PC 30.06 on a cocktail napkin)

If one of these three actions does not take place, then you're not in violation of PC 30.06 regardless of anyone's "intent"

austinrealtor wrote:Just to clarify ...

IF a sign is vaild/enforceable and
IF you walk past the valid/enforceable sign
YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW
with a valid/enforceable PC 30.06 no one needs to "ask you to leave" first. You are in violation of the law the moment you enter the building.

Photoman's IF series above would apply to anyplace posting an invalid/unenforceable sign (or no sign at all).

Basically YOU as a CHLee carrying your gun are in violation of PC 30.06 ...

• IF you walk past a valid/enforceable sign
• IF you fail to leave immediately upon being told orally by someone with apparent authority that you cannot have a gun on premises
• IF you fail to leave immediately upon being given a valid/enforceable written notification of PC 30.06 other than a sign (e.g. a pamphlet, employee handbook, ticket stub, 8x11 piece of paper, hand-written exactly as stated in PC 30.06 on a cocktail napkin)

If one of these three actions does not take place, then you're not in violation of PC 30.06 regardless of anyone's "intent"

Austin, if you take a look at the photo the OP posted, you'll see it's not a valid sign. So while your info is 100% correct, it's not really applicable to this post as the sign is definitely not valid.

RottenApple wrote:
Austin, if you take a look at the photo the OP posted, you'll see it's not a valid sign. So while your info is 100% correct, it's not really applicable to this post as the sign is definitely not valid.

Correct, I was merely trying to clarify Photoman's post for anyone who might mistakenly think it applies in all 30.06 situations. I don't want anyone (especially someone new to CHL) thinking they can carry past a valid/enforceable 30.06 sign and only need to leave if/when they are asked to.

Running Arrow Bill wrote:IMO, whether the sign is "legal" or not, they have made their "intent" and you have been "given notice".

Better to keep your guns away from this place and save possible grief & inconvenience... Much easier and cheaper than defending your self in Court, IMO.

Fortunately, Texas law disagrees with you here.

"No Shoes, No Shirt, No service" expresses intent.
I may or may not care about their wishes ... say if my foot is in a cast and I can't wear a shoe could be one reason, it's 50 miles back to the house and I forgot my shoes might be a reason, doctor said to let my feet air out due to some condition, could be a reason for some people or I just don't care might be another ...
It's "legal" to post that, so it's a legal sign.
However not living up to their wishes isn't a criminal offense.
If they serve you anyway, enjoy the food.
Though you may be asked to leave if they notice your barefootedness, and it's only trespassing (30.05) if they notice and orally ask you to go, and you don't leave promptly.

Same with the original post and legally unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Arrest me for barefootedness ... what's it worth to you and the city in legal fees (and the settlements you'll pay me)?

I might weigh your wishes against my rights .... and see what I do (I walk past signs which express wishes... I do follow the law)

Embalmo wrote:

Running Arrow Bill wrote:IMO, whether the sign is "legal" or not, they have made their "intent" and you have been "given notice".

Better to keep your guns away from this place and save possible grief & inconvenience... Much easier and cheaper than defending your self in Court, IMO.

Fortunately, Texas law disagrees with you here.

Ok...aside from Texas Law. My point was and is, I don't really care what any signage says: If I am "not welcome" to any place by any means posted (legal or illegal) I do not have the energy, time, or potentially $$ to defend my position as to whether or not I was right or wrong by entering such premises. There is more than one of that type of business in the USA where CHL citizens ARE unconditionally welcome: they will get my business if I have any choice whatsover.

Given that, I do realize of course that there are any number of CHL holders who feel they need to nit pick issues and challenge any "system". Whether it's bravado, "my right", testosterone, etc., I don't know. I also realize there is a lot of good information on these Boards to assist the uninformed and give direction where to go, do next. On a sidebar, as a US Army Veteran, my position is that "if I'm not shot at, I won't shoot first" (or challenge the system)...I've got better things to do with my time and money... JMO.

A-R wrote:

RottenApple wrote:
Austin, if you take a look at the photo the OP posted, you'll see it's not a valid sign. So while your info is 100% correct, it's not really applicable to this post as the sign is definitely not valid.

Correct, I was merely trying to clarify Photoman's post for anyone who might mistakenly think it applies in all 30.06 situations. I don't want anyone (especially someone new to CHL) thinking they can carry past a valid/enforceable 30.06 sign and only need to leave if/when they are asked to.

Yes, it's very important for all to understand the distinction between 30.06(a)(2)(A) and 30.06(a)(2)(B).