TexasCHLforum.com

There seem to be two main interpretations of the reach of a 30.06 sign:
1) the sign creates a boundary past which one cannot carry; and
2) the sign applies to an entire location regardless of where it appears on that property.

Where does your interpretation fall?

I have seen many say that if you see a sign at the back of a store, it applies to the entire store. But since 30.06 (statute and sign) refers to the property, not the building, wouldn't that make the sign applicable to the entire property, including parking lots? So a 30.06 sign posted at the door of a hospital would apply to the parking lot as well, if considering the "entire location" interpretation (2).

As far as I'm concerned, guess No.1 is the right answer. After all, concealed is concealed plus how is John or Jane Doe supposed to know where the property lines are.

YMMV and IANAL. Toodles.

If there is a 30.06 sign on the entry to a parking lot, I would then assume I cannot have a concealed weapon on the parking lot or in the store(s) that the particular parking lot is for.
If I see a sign on a door of a building, or in the very back of the inside of the store, the entire store is off limits and I need to leave immediately if I am carrying, but it does not extend to the parking lot.

Teamless wrote:If there is a 30.06 sign on the entry to a parking lot, I would then assume I cannot have a concealed weapon on the parking lot or in the store(s) that the particular parking lot is for.
If I see a sign on a door of a building,

These two interpretations seem to follow the "boundary" concept.

Teamless wrote: or in the very back of the inside of the store, the entire store is off limits and I need to leave immediately if I am carrying, but it does not extend to the parking lot.

This fits the "entire location" concept. But what is the justification for it applying only to the building and not to the whole property, as stated on the sign?

Teamless wrote:If there is a 30.06 sign on the entry to a parking lot, I would then assume I cannot have a concealed weapon on the parking lot or in the store(s) that the particular parking lot is for.
If I see a sign on a door of a building, or in the very back of the inside of the store, the entire store is off limits and I need to leave immediately if I am carrying, but it does not extend to the parking lot.

I cant remember where but I thought I had heard that you could carry past the sign at the parking lot under MPA as long as the gun stays in the car when you get out.

MasterOfNone wrote:There seem to be two main interpretations of the reach of a 30.06 sign:
1) the sign creates a boundary past which one cannot carry; and
2) the sign applies to an entire location regardless of where it appears on that property.

Where does your interpretation fall?

#2 Other signs, like a no smoking sign, usually apply to the entire location unless they say otherwise.

Ameer wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:There seem to be two main interpretations of the reach of a 30.06 sign:
1) the sign creates a boundary past which one cannot carry; and
2) the sign applies to an entire location regardless of where it appears on that property.

Where does your interpretation fall?

#2 Other signs, like a no smoking sign, usually apply to the entire location unless they say otherwise.

Who knows what defines the extent of the location and how is it delineated?

I would have to go with #1. Suppose a building in a strip mall has a 30.06 sign, surely it can't apply to the whole strip mall.(all the other buildings and parking lot)

jocat54 wrote:I would have to go with #1. Suppose a store in a strip mall has a 30.06 sign, surely it can't apply to the whole strip mall: (all the other stores, outlying buildings and parking lot)

Fixed it for you...maybe.

My big concern is the lack of definition of the area affected by the sign, especially since the required wording on the sign is "...may not enter this property..." With such wording, is it even possible to make part of a property off limits to CHL?

Oldgringo wrote:

jocat54 wrote:I would have to go with #1. Suppose a store in a strip mall has a 30.06 sign, surely it can't apply to the whole strip mall: (all the other stores, outlying buildings and parking lot)

Fixed it for you...maybe.

There's nothing that says so but I'd consider it to include the property/location the poster has effective control over. So if the manager of a store posts 30.06 then it could only apply to the location he has control of, his store.

I don't know the correct answer, but there seems to be two basic places where the sign can be posted.

1. On or in a building. For this sign, wouldn't have to go with the state's definition of premises of it being that building and any other part of that building under the control of that which posted the sign. I may not have worded that correctly, but the situation I'm thinking of is like at a mall that has posted it's entrances, while other stores like Sears or Macy's has not. Sure, they all in the same building, but Macy's has leased it's space and it is under its control. Theoretically I guess.

2. At the entrance to a parking lot. I guess this covers the parking lot for non-employees now. I don't know if this covers the building or not. What if it is a place where the building is not posted and my wife drives me and drops me off? Parking lots seem really fuzzy to me. Also, I think a 30.06 sign is meaningless to someone without a CHL carrying in their vehicle under the MPA.

I do not view the 30.06 sign as something I cannot walk past since it can be well inside a store and still prohibit me from carrying anywhere in that store. Unless I could convince a judge or jury that I had not received effective notice because I had not seen the sign at all I don't think I would get very far with that defense. Even then I still think it is only a slim chance at best. It would be nice if they were required to be at all entrances that could be seen prior to entry.

C-dub wrote:1. On or in a building. For this sign, wouldn't have to go with the state's definition of premises of it being that building and any other part of that building under the control of that which posted the sign.

30.06 does not use that definition. It uses the term "property." The definition of "premises" you refer to applies to 46.03 and 46.035.

C-dub wrote:I do not view the 30.06 sign as something I cannot walk past since it can be well inside a store and still prohibit me from carrying anywhere in that store. Unless I could convince a judge or jury that I had not received effective notice because I had not seen the sign at all I don't think I would get very far with that defense. Even then I still think it is only a slim chance at best. It would be nice if they were required to be at all entrances that could be seen prior to entry.

I think this is one of the great uncertainties of 30.06. If the sign is clearly visible in the back of the store, it is not reasonable to claim that you were given notice unless you happened to walk to the place where the sign is located.

MasterOfNone wrote:

C-dub wrote:1. On or in a building. For this sign, wouldn't have to go with the state's definition of premises of it being that building and any other part of that building under the control of that which posted the sign.

30.06 does not use that definition. It uses the term "property." The definition of "premises" you refer to applies to 46.03 and 46.035.

Thanks. I had forgotten about the different use of property vs. premises.