TexasCHLforum.com

Howdy Yall, maybe I'm losing my marbles here or plain forgot the answer to this (more likely) but what is the purpose of PC 46.035 naming specific places (hospital, nursing home, church, etc.) saying you can't carry here (in subsection b and c) but later in subsection I it basically says that those places have to post 30.06 for you to not be able to carry. Isn't that true of ANY place? Can't a grocery store post 30.06 making it illegal for me to carry there? Why are those ones specifically mentioned in the law if the law says they must post 30.06 to make it illegal? Thanks for any clarification!

In a word... politics.

One group wanted those places "off-limits", so they were put there.

Someone smarter came along and added the "effective notice" clause.

It worked out well for us, so we leave it alone.

When CHL was approved in 1995, those places were originally off-limits. Additionally, at that time gun-buster signs were all that was required to prevent carry. In the 1997 legislative session they created 30.06 and made the places listed in section (i) require the posting of 30.06 on them to make them off-limits.

Keith B wrote:When CHL was approved in 1995, those places were originally off-limits. Additionally, at that time gun-buster signs were all that was required to prevent carry. In the 1997 legislative session they created 30.06 and made the places listed in section (i) require the posting of 30.06 on them to make them off-limits.

I don't know if I necessarily agree that a "gunbuster" was all that was required to legally bar someone from carrying. The question would be if it served as proper notice under 30.05. Lot's of places have "rules" posted in various locations throughout the premises w/ varying degrees of visibility. I'm not convinced that these (in 1996) necessarily notified you that your entry onto the premises was prohibited. I think the general consensus at the time was that the sign should reference trespass law and state that the carrying of concealed handguns was prohibited. It's been a while but I don't ever recall hearing of someone prosecuted under 30.05 for carrying (though it could have happened).

I thought it was because those places may be owned by the city these are specific places where a 30.06 sign would be valid on a city owned property. I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing something like that once.

ss1088 wrote:I thought it was because those places may be owned by the city these are specific places where a 30.06 sign would be valid on a city owned property. I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing something like that once.

Never heard of a city owned church?

wgoforth wrote:

ss1088 wrote:I thought it was because those places may be owned by the city these are specific places where a 30.06 sign would be valid on a city owned property. I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing something like that once.

Never heard of a city owned church?

Perhaps and airport chapel?

ScottDLS wrote:

Keith B wrote:When CHL was approved in 1995, those places were originally off-limits. Additionally, at that time gun-buster signs were all that was required to prevent carry. In the 1997 legislative session they created 30.06 and made the places listed in section (i) require the posting of 30.06 on them to make them off-limits.

I don't know if I necessarily agree that a "gunbuster" was all that was required to legally bar someone from carrying. The question would be if it served as proper notice under 30.05. Lot's of places have "rules" posted in various locations throughout the premises w/ varying degrees of visibility. I'm not convinced that these (in 1996) necessarily notified you that your entry onto the premises was prohibited. I think the general consensus at the time was that the sign should reference trespass law and state that the carrying of concealed handguns was prohibited. It's been a while but I don't ever recall hearing of someone prosecuted under 30.05 for carrying (though it could have happened).

The consensus in the legal field was that generic "no guns" decals were sufficient to support a prosecution for violation of TPC §30.05. The international slash symbol was/is very well recognized as a prohibition. Obviously, they had to be seen, but anywhere on the front door would have met that requirement in most cases. That's why creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997 was absolutely critical.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Keith B wrote:When CHL was approved in 1995, those places were originally off-limits. Additionally, at that time gun-buster signs were all that was required to prevent carry. In the 1997 legislative session they created 30.06 and made the places listed in section (i) require the posting of 30.06 on them to make them off-limits.

I don't know if I necessarily agree that a "gunbuster" was all that was required to legally bar someone from carrying. The question would be if it served as proper notice under 30.05. Lot's of places have "rules" posted in various locations throughout the premises w/ varying degrees of visibility. I'm not convinced that these (in 1996) necessarily notified you that your entry onto the premises was prohibited. I think the general consensus at the time was that the sign should reference trespass law and state that the carrying of concealed handguns was prohibited. It's been a while but I don't ever recall hearing of someone prosecuted under 30.05 for carrying (though it could have happened).

The consensus in the legal field was that generic "no guns" decals were sufficient to support a prosecution for violation of TPC §30.05. The international slash symbol was/is very well recognized as a prohibition. Obviously, they had to be seen, but anywhere on the front door would have met that requirement in most cases. That's why creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997 was absolutely critical.

Chas.

Thank you for the explanation. Texas trespass seems kind of strict in this regard as you could theoretically get convicted for walking past a circle/slash cellphone sign at the doctor's office, or no hats sign at the bank.

ScottDLS wrote:Thank you for the explanation. Texas trespass seems kind of strict in this regard as you could theoretically get convicted for walking past a circle/slash cellphone sign at the doctor's office, or no hats sign at the bank.

How about sneaking a candy bar into a movie theater that has a sign prohibiting outside food and drinks?