TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting take, but I agree that if posted "as a sign" so to speak then it should meet the qualifications of a "sign". Wonder if a legal "sign" is defined anywhere in the penal code (or anywhere else I should say). Looking for a clear legal difference between a "card or other document" and a "sign" that would substantiate your view (and mine) that if you post a piece of paper with the correct language on the front door, then you've posted an incorrect "sign" not a correct "other document".

I believe AMC Theaters has been known to try to do this (post a 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper instead of a sign), and I know of at least one other place I've been that does so, though I'm not mentioning it because I don't want anyone to know I even noticed the little piece of paper. And that leads me to my next point, the clear intent of the sign guidelines was to make the effective notice as readily apparent as possible, so that CHLees would not be in danger of breaking a law just because they didn't see a tiny sign. If the instructor's viewpoint was correct, then a business could write the 30.06 language on a fortune cookie size slip of paper and leave it on a table and say they gave you effective notice.

Seems to me, even if a place posts 30.06 in less than part (b) "sign" specifications, you have an undefined defense to prosecution that "I didn't see it, nor could/should I have been expected to see it."

Of course, all that will cost you time and money, so best to stay concealed and avoid any place that even attempts to post the proper 30.06 wording (like Eyemasters who likes to post 30.06 in tiny white lettering on the bottom of their huge plate glass windows).

I think clarifying this section would be a good "fix" to push for in the legislature next term. Just insert the words "given to" after "card or other document" and you can easily clarify what I believe was the original intent: you can be given 30.06 notice written on a document (ticket stub, employee handbook, whatever) or you can be given 30.06 notice by a properly formatted sign clearly visible to the entering public.

Also, not sure if this helps as far as tracing back the history of 30.06 wording, but I still have my 1999-2000 CHL law book and the wording of Section 30.06 is identical.

I'm kind of wondering where the CHL instructor finds support for his interpretation of the statute. If para 3(A) stands on it's own as written notice, then why did the legislature even add para 3(B) ?

Also, note that an element of the offense that must be proved (not a "defense" that you must enter at trial) is that you "received notice".Then the statute goes on to define (written) notice as either 3(A) or (B). So to be convicted of the offense, one would assume that the prosecution has to prove that you "received notice".

If you were handed a card or document...OK. But if the sign was not as defined, or even if they could not prove that you received written notice by seeing the properly sized, conspicuously located sign...well I think you have a pretty good chance of prevailing at or before trial.

And YES, in the very unlikely event that I am put in the situation to have to defend myself from this type of issue, I AM willing to be the "test case", "take the ride", "spend thousands defending myself". Why? Because I believe the law should be interpreted according to the plain language of the statute and the intent of the duly elected legislature who passed it, not the whim of the county prosecutor or unelected law enforcement .

PC §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.
(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
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
PC §42.01 35
(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.

Hi guys,

I was the one who originally mis-interpreted that part of the Penal Code in a discussion with Russel on his site http://www.texas3006.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (a very cool site, btw).

Here's my response to him on his site.


"Hi Russel, here's the final word on this. In short, you were right, and I was wrong.

The last lady from who I got my original information, it turns out, was a legal secretary which she didn't mention on the phone.
She escalated it to the actual lawyers for the state who corrected her and me. Here's what they said:

Paragraph A deals with a card or document. It's meant to mean some sort of piece of paper that a business owner can actually hand you.

Paragraph B says that IF IT IS A SIGN on a door or window, then it must meet the 3 criteria listed.

If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it is not a legally binding 30.06 sign."

Hope I didn't confuse anyone.

Why even have any requirements for the sign?

bdickens wrote:

Why even have any requirements for the sign?

The sign specifications weren't always there. Before, any kind of gun buster or other no guns sign was effective notice.

The specs guaranteed that the sign would be huge, ugly, and take up prime space on the front window or door. Making the sign distasteful was a way of making the merchant consider twice before posting.

That's the explanation I was given. I think we should take the print size on the sign up to a 12" high, in English and Spanish. You'd need a whole billboard to post one

flynbenny wrote: That's the explanation I was given. I think we should take the print size on the sign up to a 12" high, in English and Spanish. You'd need a whole billboard to post one

in multi-colored flashing neon too

They should make this the new legal sign.

http://bearvisions.com/4Guns/GunFree.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gearheart wrote:They should make this the new legal sign.

http://bearvisions.com/4Guns/GunFree.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is perfect. That should be the legally-required signage in order to prohibit employees from carrying.