Credit Union Invalid 30.06

[Bugler]

This CU in Beaumont displays this on the glass at the entrance to the the lobby.



While I was there I asked the manager why they chose to restrict CHL's in their business. I told her that I realized that they had the right to do so, but was just wondering how they came upon their decision. All she could give me was that it was a board decision, and that all of the banks, and CU's in the area had done so also. Well I thanked her and left the building. I didn't feel the need to inform her about the sign. I had to go over to another national chain bank less than a mile away at the mall, and there was no 30.06.

[RoyGBiv]

My bank has a gunbuster sign on the door.
I asked the manager whether anyone thought that sign would keep out a bad guy, or whether a bad guy would be further encouraged because a licensed CHL holder is less likely to be in their bank...

She said she would ask her regional VP about it and "get back to me"...

[Teamless]

You do realize that now that you questioned it, the invalid sign (for me), is now VALID for you, as you have been given oral notice by the "it was the boards decision", to me that means, it was corroborated that they do not want CHLs carrying in the store.

had you not done that, you could technically still legally carry there, as you had a defense to prosecution as the sign was invalid.

Hopefully you didn't tell them that the sign was invalid, as if so, now they will fix it, and keep the rest of the CHLs in the area from legally carrying there.

Sometimes it is better to just leave it alone, especially when it is not valid as it sits.

[RPB]

I'm not licensed under Article 4413 (29ee) so that sign does not apply to my CHL and I can go in there carrying....

Too bad you got oral notice and can't now.

I hope they don't read it and update it now so it bans all law abiding Licensees who would do business there..

[RPB]

My bank has a gunbuster sign on the door.
I asked the manager whether anyone thought that sign would keep out a bad guy, or whether a bad guy would be further encouraged because a licensed CHL holder is less likely to be in their bank...

She said she would ask her regional VP about it and "get back to me"...

My bank has had one of those for, over 8 years I noticed it; it's peeling off slowly and the sun is fading it; I'm just waiting for it to finally fall off and not saying anything.

[Bugler]

You do realize that now that you questioned it, the invalid sign (for me), is now VALID for you, as you have been given oral notice by the "it was the boards decision", to me that means, it was corroborated that they do not want CHLs carrying in the store.

had you not done that, you could technically still legally carry there, as you had a defense to prosecution as the sign was invalid.

You may be right, but as long as they are ignorant of their sign, do I still have to abide by their now "intention" instead of the letter of the law pertaining to the sign? We all know their intention when they post the signs.

Glad to have this place to ask the questions.

[Jim Beaux]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Credit Unions are owned by the membership. I bet the "powers that be" would "git their mind right" if enough members threatened to withdraw their money/business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oik6dXm-0l0

[Jim Beaux]

You do realize that now that you questioned it, the invalid sign (for me), is now VALID for you, as you have been given oral notice by the "it was the boards decision", to me that means, it was corroborated that they do not want CHLs carrying in the store.

had you not done that, you could technically still legally carry there, as you had a defense to prosecution as the sign was invalid.

You may be right, but as long as they are ignorant of their sign, do I still have to abide by their now "intention" instead of the letter of the law pertaining to the sign? We all know their intention when they post the signs.

Glad to have this place to ask the questions.

The law is precisely spelled out so that we do not have to guess as to just what true intentions are. I think this gunbuster sign is posted to merely appease the gun shy.

Sec. 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:

(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.

[Teamless]

do I still have to abide by their now "intention

Honestly, I do believe YOU (not me) has to abide by their intention, because you specifically asked them about it, and they said that it was a board decision.

So to me, you were given "oral notice". Oral notice does not have to be the wording, but a simple, "we do not want CHL's here" will suffice, but only as long as the person answering should have the ability to deliver that notice. _ it is up to you to determine if that person had the ability to deliver the notice.

if you determine, that the person did not have the ability to deliver the notice, then you can carry there, but in reality, I think anyone whom you talked to was a representative of the CU, therefore had the ability.



I said "YOU (not me)" above, meaning that if I were to go there, I would ignore the sign (not valid sign) and I will not ask them.

[C-dub]

Bugler was not told he couldn't carry there. He was told that it was the Board's decision to put up a meaningless sign. If we had to abide by everyone's intention then we would also have to stay out of businesses that posted gun buster signs.

[Teamless]

C-dub, I respect your opinion, but you also know that the oral notice doesn't take much, and in this case, I agree it is subjective, which I said it was his determination on it, however, if push came to shove, I think it could go either way, if the law were called and it went to court - and all of the details as explained here, were told.

[C-dub]

C-dub, I respect your opinion, but you also know that the oral notice doesn't take much, and in this case, I agree it is subjective, which I said it was his determination on it, however, if push came to shove, I think it could go either way, if the law were called and it went to court - and all of the details as explained here, were told.

Of course, and oral notice is also the most difficult to prove. I think most of the folks that speak legalese and practice it here have said that it would usually take being told in front of a LEO and then refusal to leave to get some nice shiny jewelry and a not so free backseat ride.

[Bugler]

Thanks,all! Fortunately I rarely go there. It's still a little unclear to whether or not I was given notice or just explained as to what a board had decided to do. I'll probably not do it just in case. Regardless, I'll keep my mouth shut next time and ask my questions here.

[cbunt1]

. . . if push came to shove, I think it could go either way, if the law were called and it went to court . . .

And therein lies the rub, and is the very reason that we will likely never have case law upon which to base these discussions. The very fact is that a RECOGNIZED infraction of PC 30.06, will require violation of other statutes which are less cloudy. In other words, if someone becomes aware of the fact that you are indeed carrying a handgun in violation of the notification requirements of PC 30.06, you would also (most likely) be guilty of one of the failure-to-conceal clauses.

Even though "Failure to conceal" requires "intent," the prosecutor would more likely hang THAT charge than the 30.06 violation...

All that really means (IMO) Is that if you didn't tell 'em, and you didn't show 'em, they won't know you're carrying in the first place (not addressing whether the "board decision" comment serves as oral notice or not).

JMHO.

[ffemt300]

Some really good discussion going on here. My personal thoughts are to just walk past the invalid signs and obey the legit ones(which seem to be few and far between). Seems to me like asking about an establishments decision to restrict CHL's just raises unnecessary questions and brings attention to my attempts at concealment. Again, really good discussion.