TexasCHLforum.com

Proof that even the police don't know the laws
This is Posted in Houston Metro's main building, by Metro PD.



They were alllllllmost there, and then had to fudge up the last part.

Question is, all the wording is there (from what I can tell, haven't compared exactly yet) but they added to the end. Does that invalidate it?

Well, in addition to the wording being incorrect, it was also not 1" high lettering, and it is Definately not 'Block Lettering'.
They got the Conspicuous placing and the English & Spanish part right though

Anyone want to be a test case? They use metal detectors after this sign when there's a board meeting XD

dicion wrote:Proof that even the police don't know the laws
This is Posted in Houston Metro's main building, by Metro PD.



They were alllllllmost there, and then had to fudge up the last part.

Question is, all the wording is there (from what I can tell, haven't compared exactly yet) but they added to the end. Does that invalidate it?

Well, in addition to the wording being incorrect, it was also not 1" high lettering, and it is Definately not 'Block Lettering'.
They got the Conspicuous placing and the English & Spanish part right though

Anyone want to be a test case? They use metal detectors after this sign when there's a board meeting XD

It is not a 30.06 sign, however it is just stating what is on the statues

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER........
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of
whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental
entity.

I assume a board meeting meets the definition of a governmental entity, but I could be wrong.

JJVP wrote: It is not a 30.06 sign, however it is just stating what is on the statues

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER........
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of
whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental
entity.

I assume a board meeting meets the definition of a governmental entity, but I could be wrong.

Yes, it does meet that definition. That's not what I'm saying.

It indeed IS, at least an attempt at a 30.06 sign, being that it begins "Persuant to section 30.06..." and has All the 30.06 verbage. It then ADDS the 'At any meeting of a government agency' to the end, with a reference. My first question was, does this Addition invalidate the sign as valid notice under 30.06 all by itself? I do not know.


My second observation was that the letters were not 1" tall. This invalidates the sign by itself, so yes, I know it is not a 'valid 30.06 notice' because of this.

Under 46.035, (i) nullifies (c) if valid notice under 30.06 is not given. Since the Sign is not 'valid notice' because it doesn't meet the requirements, then 46.035(c) does not apply. Hence my asking if anyone wanted to be a test case, as I'm sure you'd be busted going through the metal detectors XD

However, we can also go even further and argue that no 30.06 sign posted, even if correct, is valid, because it is government property, and under 30.06 itself, it says that no 30.06 sign posted on government property is valid. So no 30.06 sign being valid, means that 46.035(c) cannot be applied. This even IF the sign is 100% Correct.

Anyone confused yet?

My original point was, that even the police department can't apparently be bothered to look up, and post, a 100% correct sign

dicion wrote: However, we can also go even further and argue that no 30.06 sign posted, even if correct, is valid, because it is government property, and under 30.06 itself, it says that no 30.06 sign posted on government property is valid. So no 30.06 sign being valid, means that 46.035(c) cannot be applied. This even IF the sign is 100% Correct.

I don't think this is a valid argument because it says elsewhere that a government meeting, when properly posted, is off-limits. I don't think it makes a difference whether the meeting is being held on government property or not. I would not try it.

I do think the sign is not valid because the wording is not correct and the size and font are not correct. I would probably point this out to an officer and probably be dismissed and the sign would not be changed anyway.

C-dub wrote:

dicion wrote: However, we can also go even further and argue that no 30.06 sign posted, even if correct, is valid, because it is government property, and under 30.06 itself, it says that no 30.06 sign posted on government property is valid. So no 30.06 sign being valid, means that 46.035(c) cannot be applied. This even IF the sign is 100% Correct.

I don't think this is a valid argument because it says elsewhere that a government meeting, when properly posted, is off-limits. I don't think it makes a difference whether the meeting is being held on government property or not. I would not try it.

I do think the sign is not valid because the wording is not correct and the size and font are not correct. I would probably point this out to an officer and probably be dismissed and the sign would not be changed anyway.

You nailed it right there. When properly posted. It refers to section 30.06 for the proper posting. So if it's not valid under 30.06, it's not a proper posting, therefore, not properly posted :)
This IS the sign they use at the government meetings :)

But yea, that's further than I wanted to take this... Just wanted to show a moment, that even the police don't know how to give valid notice under. 30.06

Personally I am more impressed by the big gold shield.
Now that stops a BG in his tracks.

I cannot say if the sign is valid or not based on the size of the lettering (without measuring it I would not recommend guessing at the height and the overall sign looks big enough), but the more important question is if the additional language invalidates the sign.

My gut answer is that the sign would be valid with the additional language. There is nothing in the statute that requires solely the required language. The statute does not even put a period at the end of the required language, so it is not a full sentence yet. The law requires the sign to have "written language identical to" and the sign does have that. Since there is nothing forbidding additional language and anything not forbidden is permissible, I would say the sign would be valid (given all other requirements met of course). As a better example of why you can add other language, suppose we move the sign to some private property that is leased (say Grapevine Mall :lol ). The lessee wants you to fully understand that this is the owners policy and posts a fully compliant sign that says at the top "Bass Pro Shops wants you to understand that this property ois owned by Simon Malls and Simon Malls requires the following" and then has a space and then the full wording of 30.06. Would you think it was invalid then?

What about signs that just add a big attention grabbing gun buster picture and the word NOTICE in 2 inch letters? No one would argue that this extra language would invalidate the sign. And the law tries to always be consistent, so if I can add those, I can add a phrase that clarifies that I just mean during the meeting and not at all times. I think they were trying to post so most people would keep guns out while also trying to stay within the law by explaining it only applies during the meetings.

I think there's a good argument that the sign pictured is NOT valid written notice under PC 30.06. The letter size in not correct. It looks pretty clear from the scope of the picture that the letters are much smaller than 1".

A properly posted 30.06 sign IS valid as a bar to CHL carry on government property at "... any meeting of a governmental entity". The sign pictured does not appear to meet the exact statutory requirements of "notice" under PC 30.06. In fact, because so many government offices (arbitrarily) post when there is NOT a meeting going on, I think you'd have an even better case to beat this "close" sign.

So if you carried there I believe you would not be breaking the law.

However, to throw around the fun lawyer terms...The point is moot. There's a metal detector/screening. If they find your handgun, and there IS a meeting going on, they will give you valid "oral" notice and you'll have to leave. If they arrested you for trying to get in...well then we'd get our precious "test case" as to whether the 30.06 statute actually means what is says, "1 inch high letters, exact wording, etc."

ScottDLS wrote:I think there's a good argument that the sign pictured is NOT valid written notice under PC 30.06. The letter size in not correct. It looks pretty clear from the scope of the picture that the letters are much smaller than 1".

A properly posted 30.06 sign IS valid as a bar to CHL carry on government property at "... any meeting of a governmental entity". The sign pictured does not appear to meet the exact statutory requirements of "notice" under PC 30.06. In fact, because so many government offices (arbitrarily) post when there is NOT a meeting going on, I think you'd have an even better case to beat this "close" sign.

So if you carried there I believe you would not be breaking the law.

However, to throw around the fun lawyer terms...The point is moot. There's a metal detector/screening. If they find your handgun, and there IS a meeting going on, they will give you valid "oral" notice and you'll have to leave. If they arrested you for trying to get in...well then we'd get our precious "test case" as to whether the 30.06 statute actually means what is says, "1 inch high letters, exact wording, etc."

I have closely examined the sign, and without busting out a ruler, I cannot say fore SURE that they are not 1", but I'm 98.5% sure that they are not.

However, I agree with you Scott. The point is moot with the metal detectors, and we'd possibly get our test case.

Anyone want to volunteer?

Does the badge on the sign mean HPD can't carry either?

srothstein wrote:What about signs that just add a big attention grabbing gun buster picture and the word NOTICE in 2 inch letters? No one would argue that this extra language would invalidate the sign.

Oh yes they would.

C-dub wrote: I do think the sign is not valid because the wording is not correct

Okay. I take back what I said here.

srothstein wrote:There is nothing in the statute that requires solely the required language. The statute does not even put a period at the end of the required language, so it is not a full sentence yet. The law requires the sign to have "written language identical to" and the sign does have that. Since there is nothing forbidding additional language and anything not forbidden is permissible, I would say the sign would be valid (given all other requirements met of course).

I was thinking the same thing. The statute does not say it can't be added to. Only that it must include certain wording. The way I look at it is even if the sign is not valid by legal definition, it is obvious they don't want guns in their board room, store, or whatever. Why take a chance on stirring up a big mess and potentially giving CHL holders a black eye by carrying in places that have a sign, valid or not? And if the media ever got hold of something like this they would twist it into CHL holders ignoring posted signs. Just not worth the potential bad publicity for CHL holders.

Kinetic wrote: The way I look at it is even if the sign is not valid by legal definition, it is obvious they don't want guns in their board room, store, or whatever. Why take a chance on stirring up a big mess and potentially giving CHL holders a black eye by carrying in places that have a sign, valid or not? And if the media ever got hold of something like this they would twist it into CHL holders ignoring posted signs. Just not worth the potential bad publicity for CHL holders.

...but would that statement be true for all gun-buster signs too?

Kinetic wrote:

srothstein wrote:There is nothing in the statute that requires solely the required language. The statute does not even put a period at the end of the required language, so it is not a full sentence yet. The law requires the sign to have "written language identical to" and the sign does have that. Since there is nothing forbidding additional language and anything not forbidden is permissible, I would say the sign would be valid (given all other requirements met of course).

I was thinking the same thing. The statute does not say it can't be added to. Only that it must include certain wording. The way I look at it is even if the sign is not valid by legal definition, it is obvious they don't want guns in their board room, store, or whatever. Why take a chance on stirring up a big mess and potentially giving CHL holders a black eye by carrying in places that have a sign, valid or not? And if the media ever got hold of something like this they would twist it into CHL holders ignoring posted signs. Just not worth the potential bad publicity for CHL holders.

I agree that I don't see where adding to the required language makes the sign invalid. However, I disagree about not carrying in a government building if there is NOT a meeting going on. I don't care if they don't want me carrying in there, it's public property just like the city sidewalk, and I'm going to carry there absent a valid 30.06 notice AND a meeting going on.

If a store or other private property wants to bar me from carrying, then they can darn well figure out the proper 30.06 notice and post it. I'm not responsible to divine the intention of every piece of paper/sticker/poster that has a frowny face and a gun on it.