TexasCHLforum.com

Arock wrote:Please provide a reference as this contradicts my understanding from reading other threads on this site. Specifically as it pertains to access to City of Dallas offices.

I will search for my reference.

The change was made in 2003 and was part of SB501. Specifically, the phrase "on the premises of" was added to TPC 46.03(a)(3) making it read: on the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court.

Entire courthouse buildings are off-limits, as they house nothing but courtrooms and court offices. However, this is the basis for many to argue that the existence of a single courtroom or court office renders an entire building off-limits to CHL's. Some cities have used this erroneous contention to place a single court office in a building such as a city hall, then contend the entire building is off-limits.

This position ignores the statutory definition of "premises." The definition states, among other things, that a “premises� includes a "building or part of a building." See TPC §46.03(c)(1) adopting 46.035(f)(3).

The Legislative intent was to prohibit carrying in only those portions of the building where the activity that prompted the prohibition of handguns actually occurred, rather than the entire building. (This one really irritates me, as this was my definition and I was directly involved in the drafting, negotiating and ultimate adoption of this definition.)

So, the bottom line is some cities, counties and perhaps other governmental entities are misapplying §46.03(a)(3), but this should be addressed in 2007, rather than any test-case volunteers taking on the challenge!

Regards,
Chas.

Thank you, Charles.

Addresses exactly the point of my confusion. I agree with you this should be one of our goals for 2007. In addition to penalties for incorrect display of 30.06.

But let me ask for additional clarification about a building called a "courthouse" that has other non-court related offices? ie. County voting administrator etc? The situation I am addressing in Rockwall County is with two buildings.

The first is Rockwall County Government Center which has courtrooms for Rockwall County Court and 362nd State District Court but has several other non-court related offices.

Second is the recently-renovated old historic Rockwall County Courthouse on the square in Rockwall. It has the office of County Commissioners Court. Other offices are JP (which i think is a court), voting administrator etc.

Is Commissioners Court considered a court? They don't hear cases and the County Court of Law and County Judge's Court is in the County Government Building.

Are CHL holders legally allowed to enter the buildings to attend business in offices other than the courts?

Your insight is appreciated.

I noticed the Webster Civic Center has a 30.06 sign as of early last December 2005. I took a picture.

Not sure if there is anything else in that building, though. Anyone know?

Tim

I'm just curious because there is a rather ambiguous "OR" in the statute:

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
_(B) 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

That "or" leads me to believe that a prosecutor could justify a non-compliant posting.

Does it mean a card, document OR sign?

--or--

A card/document with that language OR a sign that meets the following requirements? Do the (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to both (A) and (B), or just (B)?

Please understand that I want the postings to be illegal b/c I want to carry in as many places as possible. I'm in no way trying to justify the postings, I just want to know if a prosecutor could rely on that in a trial. Can they Mr. Cotton?

Since we have a trial-attorney here, I think we're well informed, I just wanted to point that out to see if anyone else had noticed it.

BTW, I pulled that directly out of the state website, is it outdated?

ShootNMove wrote:I'm just curious because there is a rather ambiguous "OR" in the statute:

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
_(B) 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.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(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.

That "or" leads me to believe that a prosecutor could justify a non-compliant posting.

Does it mean a card, document OR sign?

--or--

A card/document with that language OR a sign that meets the following requirements? Do the (i), (ii), and (iii) apply to both (A) and (B), or just (B)?

It's not ambiguous. If either (A) or (B) are met, then a CHL has sufficient notice that entry is prohibited while armed. It couldn't be used to justify a non-compliant posting unless the CHL were also given notice under (A).

Items (i)-(iii) are subsections of (B), and do not apply to (A).

Kevin

Here's a quasi-funny story about 30.06. As originally filed, the bill required both oral and written notice! Unfortunately, the opposition caught it and it was changed to "or."

Oh well, we tried folks.

Chas.

So then they don't have to be in Spanish, 1" block letters or posted in a conspicuous location as long as it meets the requirements in (A)?

That answers my question. Thanks for your i/p.

ShootNMove wrote:So then they don't have to be in Spanish, 1" block letters or posted in a conspicuous location as long as it meets the requirements in (A)?

That answers my question. Thanks for your i/p.

Just remember that (A) doesn't apply to posted signs.

Right--the part about the card or document applies to something delivered in some manner directly to the person being notified.

When I read it, (B) (i) has the same written language requirements as (A) and then add's both English and Spanish, (ii) contrasting colors, one inch block letters and (iii) how it should be displayed

Tom

JohnKSa wrote:Right--the part about the card or document applies to something delivered in some manner directly to the person being notified.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was confused. So if a restaurant has a document posted on their window that meets only 1/3 requirements listed under (B), then it's an incorrect posting and I can carry inside legally?

ShootNMove wrote:

JohnKSa wrote:Right--the part about the card or document applies to something delivered in some manner directly to the person being notified.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I was confused. So if a restaurant has a document posted on their window that meets only 1/3 requirements listed under (B), then it's an incorrect posting and I can carry inside legally?

Yes. But I wouldn't bring it to anyone's attention that you've noticed the sign. If it doesn't meet the 30.06 standards, it's invisible.

Kevin

Large 30.06 posting on the outside wall of the building. Nothing in there except Police Dept and Animal Control. So far, message to City Manager has not been answered.

rwehnau wrote:Large 30.06 posting on the outside wall of the building. Nothing in there except Police Dept and Animal Control. So far, message to City Manager has not been answered.

To what are you referring?

He put the name of the establishment in his subject line.

here --> Post subject: City of Harker Heights Police Station