Bartholomew Roberts said:
With all due respect - Bad Advice Bartholomew Roberts. Invalid signs can NOT give effective notice no matter what the 'intent' was.
Verbal Notice is certainly effective notice, but ANY invalid posting is Not.
Texas 30.06 question
- Thread starter Grayrock
- Start date
- Status
With all due respect - Bad Advice Bartholomew Roberts. Invalid signs can NOT give effective notice no matter what the 'intent' was.
Verbal Notice is certainly effective notice, but ANY invalid posting is Not.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
TC-TX said:
Could you provide me with the case that reached that conclusion? I just skimmed 36 cases involving Texas CHLs and didn't see one involving this issue.
If statutes were as clear as people thought they were when they wrote them, lawyers wouldn't do much business. Shall I give examples of cases that were asked to interpret Texas statutes that arrived at different conclusions? Heck, you can look as far as the Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal saying he will prosecute people for travelling and let the jury decide despite the new law that the legislature just passed.
Personally, I don't think it is a wise course of action to push the boundaries to the extent you suggested. I think what you characterize as a factual answer could turn out different in a Texas court.
As I stated - you are free to THINK whatever you choose. Your opinion does no change the Penal Code.
The law is very clear and unambibuous. Please take the time to read the Penal Code.
My words are verbatum as quoted by TxDPS and those who administer Texas CHL. I think they will know best in this case.
BTW - I am NOT pushing bounderies. I TEACH FACTUAL LAW. I use the TxDPS Guidelines and the Texas Penal Code for my position.
Don't take this wrong Mr. Roberts - but if you choose to continue to perpetuate your opinions as fact, you do a great disservice to those who look here for Real Answers. I am an Instructor who takes the task VERY Seriously. I do not teach OPINIONS - I teach the law. I am trained and educated and quite good at what I do. It is posts like yours that confuse and confound students and readers for no good reason.
The LAW is CLEAR. Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:
includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Be Safe.
The law is very clear and unambibuous. Please take the time to read the Penal Code.
My words are verbatum as quoted by TxDPS and those who administer Texas CHL. I think they will know best in this case.
BTW - I am NOT pushing bounderies. I TEACH FACTUAL LAW. I use the TxDPS Guidelines and the Texas Penal Code for my position.
Don't take this wrong Mr. Roberts - but if you choose to continue to perpetuate your opinions as fact, you do a great disservice to those who look here for Real Answers. I am an Instructor who takes the task VERY Seriously. I do not teach OPINIONS - I teach the law. I am trained and educated and quite good at what I do. It is posts like yours that confuse and confound students and readers for no good reason.
The LAW is CLEAR. Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:
includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Be Safe.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I've read the 30.06 Penal Code, numerous times.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any place where DPS has written that opinion down formally where it could be used as evidence and DPS will not be the one ruling on the issue if a prosecutor like Rosenthal decides that 7/8" was close enough. Perhaps you could recommend to me where I can find that opinion in the legislative history of the bill? I just looked at the annotated Texas penal code and couldn't find any comments in support of that.
I took your position to be that if a sign had the perfect 30.06 language; but said "30.05" instead or had type that was 7/8" tall, then it was OK to carry there and you wouldn't face any legal consequences for it. That is definitely pushing the boundaries in my view.
Where have I characterized my opinions here as fact? I would have to be foolish indeed to state my opinion as a factual answer when there is no case law interpreting the statute.
Personally, I am of the opinion that you do a disservice to your students by telling them unequivocally that they can walk right up to the line the law lays down and dance on it and nothing will happen to them. Maybe it won't; but why encourage them to test their luck?
No offense; but if you had any experience teaching actual law as opposed to a state-mandated course of instruction involving the law, you would never make the flat-out assertions you have in this thread.
Is it? Let's look at just one way that the law may not be as clear as you think. Why don't you describe for us the language of 30.06(c)(3)(A) since it also is described by the statute as written communication that gives effective notice. Is there anything in the statute that describes how the card or document must be delivered or displayed?
Let's say I make the argument that my 8x11 piece of paper with 12pt Times New Roman font stating the language of paragraph (c)(3)(A) taped to the front door of my business establishment is effective notice under (c)(3)(A). It isn't in contrasting colors. It isn't multilingual. It isn't in 1" type; but it certainly is a document under (c)(3)(A) isn't it? Can you point me to the language in the statute that clearly says this is not effective notice?
Deavis
Member
I quoted the law earlier but some of you are missing something.
Everyone keeps on ignoring that "or" right there. There are two ways for the sign to be valid, either it is (A) or it is (B). Part (A) refers to a card or document and (B) refers to a sign. Keep that in mind when you are evaluating something on a door. If it is a document or card, which many places post, it doesn't have to confrom to the signage requirements of B. Further, to the 51% issue,
You have to knowingly do it. I don't want to test it but I have a very difficult time believing that if you carried into a questionable place, say a pool hall, and they didn't post the 51% sign that you would be found guilty in the end. Concealed does mean concealed and if you are given verbal notification, then you hit the bricks and call it a day.
Everyone keeps on ignoring that "or" right there. There are two ways for the sign to be valid, either it is (A) or it is (B). Part (A) refers to a card or document and (B) refers to a sign. Keep that in mind when you are evaluating something on a door. If it is a document or card, which many places post, it doesn't have to confrom to the signage requirements of B. Further, to the 51% issue,
You have to knowingly do it. I don't want to test it but I have a very difficult time believing that if you carried into a questionable place, say a pool hall, and they didn't post the 51% sign that you would be found guilty in the end. Concealed does mean concealed and if you are given verbal notification, then you hit the bricks and call it a day.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Reread the part you highlighted in bold. It says "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Recklessly means that if a reasonable person would have known that the place derived 51% of its income from alcohol, then you should have known it. So the prosecutor does not have to prove that YOU knew it. He just has to prove that a hypothetical third person with normal common sense who had the same information you did would have realized it despite the absence of a 51% sign.
Let's also remember that being found "not guilty" may be a small comfort to the guy who just paid $5,000 in legal fees to exercise his CHL in a place that looked a little iffy.
Generally, I think these are scenarios that are unlikely to happen. Most Texas CHLs exercise good judgement and good concealment to begin with, most Texas police officers are sympathetic, and most Texas prosecutors are reluctant to waste public funds on somebody who has no criminal record and isn't causing problems. I feel good about the likelihood of a CHL coming out OK in most cases; but do I want to bet my right to carry for the next five years on it (or in the 51% case, my right to own firearms at all)? No.
The problem comes where you have a jurisdiction that is engaged in political grandstanding and wants to score some points with its suburban/urban voters. You can find plenty of examples of this with regards to gun laws whether it is Chuck Rosenthal saying he will continue to prosecute people despite the new travelling law or whether it is different city governments refusing to remove signage declaring concealed handguns prohibited from city-owned property despite the Texas legislature making clear they lacked the power to prohibit CHL.
These are city and county officials who are looking to establish law that gives them back some of the power the state took away from them with regards to CHL. If you make it enticing for them to use you as a test case to expand their local power, you may end up in a legal bind regardless of the fact that you don't represent any real threat of crime.
hoji said:
LOL
I have a question, it may have been asked and answered before and I missed it. Let's say I'm a CHL holder, in a non-posted location. An employee approaches me and says "are you carrying a firearm, do you have a gun, or whatever" are you required to tell the employee whether or not you have one?
Deavis
Member
I agree, but would a reasonable person assume that a pool hall or a bowling alley make 51% of their profit from alcohol? With the cost of pool and throwing rocks these days, it is tough to imagine for the normal guy that they actually might. Like I said, I don't want to test it, but I've been shocked to see a 51% sign on the way out of places before. Some incorrectly placed like at a liqour store (call TABC about it to get it corrected) but some I had to wonder about. I asked once, at a bowling alley and the response was, "We got them in the mail and just put them up there." They didn't know if they sold 51% but told me they didn't want guns there so I never went back.
Deavis
Member
No, you are under no obligation to tell anyone you are carrying a CHL except LEOs when they ask for your ID. Tell them it is none of their business.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
TC-TX said:
That is a long time to be teaching law. Where did you attend law school for your JD and LLM?
TC-TX said:
I must have missed that in my numerous readings of the statute. Could you cite the language in the statute that says how a card or document must be presented?
TC-TX said:
OK, you say the Penal Code is very clear here. So clear that we cannot possibly have a different interpretation than yours on the issue. Could you please cite for me the language that says that my 8x11" paper doesn't qualify as a document under (c)(3)(A)?
It is quite simple actually:
IF it is a Card or Handbill or any other Non-Posted Document (irrelevent of delivery method), Section (3)(A) Applies:
(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 Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun";
IF it is POSTED Signage it MUST MEET ALL OF THE CONDITIONS in Section (3)(B)
(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.
IF it is a Card or Handbill or any other Non-Posted Document (irrelevent of delivery method), Section (3)(A) Applies:
(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 Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun";
IF it is POSTED Signage it MUST MEET ALL OF THE CONDITIONS in Section (3)(B)
(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.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
TC-TX said:
Yes, I understand what your opinion on the subject is. What I am asking you to do is show where in the statute it clearly says that a card or document cannot be posted. I'll also take case law on the subject if there is nothing in the statute about it.
Let's put this another way. We are in the mythical town of Sarah Brady, TX in VPC county. It is an upscale soccer mom suburb to a large metropolis with a good-sized police department. The mayor is a soccer mom herself and recently returned from Mayor Bloomberg's gun violence conference (much like Dallas's Laura Miller) and doesn't care for CCW. The police chief is a political crony of the mayor and owes his job to her. Our VPC county prosecutor is a Harris County Chuck Rosenthal-type and he is looking to support the mayor in her anti-CCW stance.
I'm an anti-gun merchant in that town and because of my fondness for discussing tiny legal distinctions and surfing THR all day, I tape the aforementioned document to my door. One of your students comes by and seeing that my 8x11 paper clearly does not meet the requirements he was told were the law, decides to enter and give his money to an anti-gun merchant like me.
Because of my keen skills from surfing THR all day, I spot his concealed firearm (probably the most implausible part of the scenario so far). Ewwww! I hate guns and I certainly don't want to confront somebody with a gun, so I call police. An officer responds and detains the student. The student acknowledges he saw the 8x11 document; but disregarded it because it didn't meet the requirements for signage. As the merchant, I point out (c)(3)(A), insist he be arrested for criminal trespass and announce my intention to lodge a complaint if this doesn't happen.
So my questions to you:
1. What is your opinion of the probability of an arrest?
2. What is your opinion of the probability of prosecution?
3. Are you willing to bet 5 years of not carrying that your guess was right?
4. Still willing to make that bet if it means $5,000 or more out of your own pocket and considerable legal hassle even if you do win?
Well – I would say that the battle lines are drawn, Texans, they are clear, and each of us is now called upon to take our choice. But while we meditate on that, I am going to take the liberty of renewing a couple of suggestions I made earlier in this thread, because I feel they are very important.
1. When Mr. Roberts speaks, we are well-advised to listen, and
2. We are equally well advised to be very cautious about taking legal advice on this issue from a CHL instructor.
We may expect a CHL instructor, and I am not referring to any particular instructor here, to often quote the DPS for propositions as to “what the law is.” The DPS and individual LEOs will often say with certainty “what the law is,” be it in a handbook or in a personal discussion. What they really mean in many cases, if not most, but do not say, is that this is their opinion as to what the law is, or it is the opinion of a superior. Granted, it may be a well-founded opinion – it may be supported even by an opinion of the Attorney General (which, by the way, are not cast in stone) but it may not be well founded. Advice by the Harris County DA about “traveling” may be an example of the latter.
Many lawyers spend more “in-court time” arguing with the other side in a hearing before a judge with respect to “what the law is” than they do actually trying a case before a jury. An appellate lawyer makes his living arguing before judges about “what the law is.” Even the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed prior decisions numerous times. There is much uncertainty in the law. Lawyers make good livings because of this uncertainty, but they are well trained to give you reliable opinions as to “what the law is,” sometimes for a hefty fee.
We must never forget that the DPS or an individual LEO has leverage that a CHL instructor does not have – they can arrest you and sort it out later before a judge. Meanwhile, you may have at risk a conviction for criminal trespass, jail time, the loss of your CHL and costly legal expenses. I would not expect your CHL instructor to be there in the courtroom making your defense. You takes your choice.
I would be the last one to ever suggest that you should never assert your rights under the law, and I have done so myself many times. I only suggest that you pick your battle with care. Once you pick it, after a sober, rational and unemotional decision, full speed ahead, but you must be prepared to pay the price if you, or your CHL instructor, are wrong.
Hold ‘em and squeeze ‘em,
Jim
1. When Mr. Roberts speaks, we are well-advised to listen, and
2. We are equally well advised to be very cautious about taking legal advice on this issue from a CHL instructor.
We may expect a CHL instructor, and I am not referring to any particular instructor here, to often quote the DPS for propositions as to “what the law is.” The DPS and individual LEOs will often say with certainty “what the law is,” be it in a handbook or in a personal discussion. What they really mean in many cases, if not most, but do not say, is that this is their opinion as to what the law is, or it is the opinion of a superior. Granted, it may be a well-founded opinion – it may be supported even by an opinion of the Attorney General (which, by the way, are not cast in stone) but it may not be well founded. Advice by the Harris County DA about “traveling” may be an example of the latter.
Many lawyers spend more “in-court time” arguing with the other side in a hearing before a judge with respect to “what the law is” than they do actually trying a case before a jury. An appellate lawyer makes his living arguing before judges about “what the law is.” Even the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed prior decisions numerous times. There is much uncertainty in the law. Lawyers make good livings because of this uncertainty, but they are well trained to give you reliable opinions as to “what the law is,” sometimes for a hefty fee.
We must never forget that the DPS or an individual LEO has leverage that a CHL instructor does not have – they can arrest you and sort it out later before a judge. Meanwhile, you may have at risk a conviction for criminal trespass, jail time, the loss of your CHL and costly legal expenses. I would not expect your CHL instructor to be there in the courtroom making your defense. You takes your choice.
I would be the last one to ever suggest that you should never assert your rights under the law, and I have done so myself many times. I only suggest that you pick your battle with care. Once you pick it, after a sober, rational and unemotional decision, full speed ahead, but you must be prepared to pay the price if you, or your CHL instructor, are wrong.
Hold ‘em and squeeze ‘em,
Jim
My posts are not my opinions - they are Facts based in The Actual Laws.
IN this scenario -
1) Probability of a VALID Arrest for violation of 30.06 Section (3)(A) - ZERO - No law has been violated.
Probability of a VALID Arrest for violation of 30.06 Section (3)(B) - ZERO - AGAIN - No law has been violated.
POSTED SIGNS MUST MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA OF 30.06 Section (3)(B). READ THE CODE.
Is there a chance for an INVALID arrest based upon a misinformed LEO - Perhaps, but if the CHL holder is Properly educated with the LAW, he stands a good chance of rectifying the issue on scene by calling for a supervisor.
2) Again - ZERO - there must first be a crime in order to prosecute.
3) YES - because it is Not a gamble NOR is it a Guess - it is The law.
4) YES - I am ABSOLUTELY committed to standing up for what is Right because it is the right thing to do. Remember - it is a crime to deny a person's legal rights based on predjudice.
Mr. Roberts - you can spend days configuring different scenarios for your amusment. I have neither the time nor the inclination to participate.
If you would take the time to Read and UNDERSTAND the law, you might get something out of it.
The question was asked and I felt compelled to answer with a Factual Legal Answer.
If you or anyone else wishes to throw out conjecture as a plausible response to a valid question - feel free. That is your choice in a forum like this. HOWEVER - Do not be surprised when someone takes you to task on your inconsistant interpretation of the law.
Enuff said.
I am off to California for the week. Make it a Great Day!
57Coastie said:
Careful 57Coastie - you border on insulting in your comments here. I find it very offensive that you find it necessary to disparrage thousands of individuals who have taken the time and effort and expense to keep folks like you Trained and Educated in the area of Texas CHL.
As an Instructor - I do NOT give legal advice - I instruct on the Law. I am liable for the information I disseminate and the things I teach. As an individual, i formulate opinions on the laws just like everyone else. I do not Teach my opinions as law, however.
You think that just because a person is a mod here on THR that it gives one a personal license for his opinions to trump state law? I do not think so.
Can laws and conditions be interpreted by individuals in a multitude of ways? - Of Course.
The question was WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY. That is where we should all start.
From there, different opinions are part of the free flowing effect of the Forum.
But they are Different. Lets make sure we present them that way and discuss them that way.
Substituting Opinion for Law is part of the liberal agenda - it happens all of the time.
I prefer to avoid that game at all cost.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
TC-TX - things aren't as black and white in the law as you seem to think they are. The opinions - and they are opinions, not facts - you give are based on an idealized version that the law strives to reach, not the version that is actually practiced in real life. Also, unfortunately it is not your interpretation of the statute or mine that matters but the interpretation of the responding officer, the prosecutor and whatever judge hears the case.
To use another analogy, a law is more like the top of a crumbling 1,000' tall cliff.
Carrying where there is no sign at all = you are so far back from the edge of the cliff, you need binoculars to see it.
Carrying where there is the circle/slash gun sign = well, you can imagine a possibility where you might fall off the cliff from here; but it is one of those freak of nature things that is unlikely to happen.
Carrying where there is a sign with 30.06 language that isn't perfectly identical = now you are standing on the edge with your toes hanging over jumping up and down. Will most people get away with it? Sure. Is it a smart idea? Probably not.
Carrying where there is a perfect 30.06 sing = Now you have stepped off the edge of the cliff.
I would hope you wouldn't tell you students it was perfectly safe to stand on the crumbly edge of a 1,000' cliff and jump up and down and I hope you don't tell your students that they can safely ignore any minor deviation from the 30.06 language.
The law says that if you have been given effective notice that the owner doesn't want you to carry there, then you can't carry there. It then goes on to define any verbal communication as effective notice and say that written communication means (c)(3)(A) or (B). If you think it is an unfathomable leap for someone to make a successful argument that some other form of written communication constitutes an effective notice despite not being codified in statute, I would have to disagree with your conclusion based on my experience reading common law cases (currently I've read 36 dealing with Texas concealed handgun licensing and around 200 dealing with self-defense or claims of self-defense) where this type of expansion by courts is not unheard of, even in Texas where the courts are much more literal about statute interpretation than many states.
To use another analogy, a law is more like the top of a crumbling 1,000' tall cliff.
Carrying where there is no sign at all = you are so far back from the edge of the cliff, you need binoculars to see it.
Carrying where there is the circle/slash gun sign = well, you can imagine a possibility where you might fall off the cliff from here; but it is one of those freak of nature things that is unlikely to happen.
Carrying where there is a sign with 30.06 language that isn't perfectly identical = now you are standing on the edge with your toes hanging over jumping up and down. Will most people get away with it? Sure. Is it a smart idea? Probably not.
Carrying where there is a perfect 30.06 sing = Now you have stepped off the edge of the cliff.
I would hope you wouldn't tell you students it was perfectly safe to stand on the crumbly edge of a 1,000' cliff and jump up and down and I hope you don't tell your students that they can safely ignore any minor deviation from the 30.06 language.
TC-TX said:
The law says that if you have been given effective notice that the owner doesn't want you to carry there, then you can't carry there. It then goes on to define any verbal communication as effective notice and say that written communication means (c)(3)(A) or (B). If you think it is an unfathomable leap for someone to make a successful argument that some other form of written communication constitutes an effective notice despite not being codified in statute, I would have to disagree with your conclusion based on my experience reading common law cases (currently I've read 36 dealing with Texas concealed handgun licensing and around 200 dealing with self-defense or claims of self-defense) where this type of expansion by courts is not unheard of, even in Texas where the courts are much more literal about statute interpretation than many states.
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
im not seeing where it says that a supervisor is required by law or policy to respond to the scene?
i have no dog in this fight. i see TC-TX is a fellow CHL instructor. i see Mr. Roberts appears to be very knowledgeable in the law.
now i assume neither of them are attorneys license in the State of Texas. if either are please correct me if i am wrong.
i think the difference here is philosophy. TC-TX as a CHL instructor and NOT an attorney doesnt have the legal right to dispense legal advice so he does what is right. so he can only teach what the law is.
Mr. Roberts, who is not a CHL instructor, can certainly state his opinion on what he thinks is practical with no ramifications as to being accused of dispensing legal advise as a CHL instructor.
i think both make valid points. what is important to remember is what will most likely happen in the real world. you may be 100% legal in a court of law, but you still can get arrested and have to pay legal fees.
rhubarb
Member
Welp, I only see one way around this mess: Legal Unlicensed Open or Concealed Carry.
arthurcw
Member
Going to sit over here and opine sense the fires seems pretty hot over there…
One thing about the 51% sings is that they should be posted on the actual establishment that derives the 51%. There are a few restaurants that “rent” the bar area to other operators so there is no 51% signage at the door. You would be (supposedly) fine anywhere in the restaurant. But go to the bar to have a smoke or chat while waiting for a table and don’t notice the sign because of the complacency of already being in the “place” and congrats… you just won the lotto.
The only direct knowledge I have of this is Olive Garden (and I can’t remember which one, may be all).
One thing about the 51% sings is that they should be posted on the actual establishment that derives the 51%. There are a few restaurants that “rent” the bar area to other operators so there is no 51% signage at the door. You would be (supposedly) fine anywhere in the restaurant. But go to the bar to have a smoke or chat while waiting for a table and don’t notice the sign because of the complacency of already being in the “place” and congrats… you just won the lotto.
The only direct knowledge I have of this is Olive Garden (and I can’t remember which one, may be all).
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Spreadfire, I think you summed it nicely and you are correct that I have no license to practice law in the state of Texas and I am not dispensing anything more than my unprofessional opinion on the subject and certainly not giving legal advice.
TC-TX is stating how the statute was written and presumably what the intent of the legislators was in passing the statute.
Since the issue has never come up, no court or prosecutor has applied their interpretation to that issue yet that I can find. All I am pointing out is that their interpretation may be different than the legislature's. Lawyers get paid to argue that the law allows them to do what their clients want to do, regardless of how the law is written and that is true for municipal government lawyers as well.
I don't think it is a big or even likely risk; but it is one that you can avoid easily enough. If you get the impression the owner doesn't want CHLs in there, don't go there - regardless of whether you might be able to do it legally because he didn't dot his "i" and cross his "t." Follow that rule and you don't have to worry about whether my hypothetical is worth betting your CHL rights on.
TC-TX is stating how the statute was written and presumably what the intent of the legislators was in passing the statute.
Since the issue has never come up, no court or prosecutor has applied their interpretation to that issue yet that I can find. All I am pointing out is that their interpretation may be different than the legislature's. Lawyers get paid to argue that the law allows them to do what their clients want to do, regardless of how the law is written and that is true for municipal government lawyers as well.
I don't think it is a big or even likely risk; but it is one that you can avoid easily enough. If you get the impression the owner doesn't want CHLs in there, don't go there - regardless of whether you might be able to do it legally because he didn't dot his "i" and cross his "t." Follow that rule and you don't have to worry about whether my hypothetical is worth betting your CHL rights on.
TC-TX: I had, and have, no intention of insulting you or anyone else here on The High Road, and I apologize if I have unknowingly done so. We happen to have a difference of opinion on a matter of great importance to our Texas members, and I expressed my opinion, as you expressed yours. Certainly you cannot accuse me of arrogantly saying that "I am right." My intention was quite the opposite -- it was to stress the point that perhaps we do not know what is right, and we perhaps should be careful of what we gamble in asserting our rectitude.
May I offer a palm branch?
We can find very little formal guidance about our issues from the highest levels in this great state of Texas. There are good reasons for that which we need not go into. Occasionally a court will issue an opinion which helps. Occasionally the DPS or other agency will issue an opinion which helps. Together they are few and far between.
We have been given a little help by our then-Attorney General, John Cornyn, who is now one of Texas's two United States Senators. Six years ago he issued a formal opinion which addressed one of the many issues having to do with our state's concealed handgun laws. Ironically enough, his opinion was issued in response to a question he was asked by a member of the state legislature which enacted the legislation. This might help point out how "clear" the law is.
To avoid unnecessarily and inordinately lengthening this post I have attached the AG's Opinion, View attachment 51142, which you may read at your leisure. While the AG addresses a specific question which is, at least so far, foreign to this thread, it does shed a great deal of light on one issue we have discussed here: the various ways of providing effective notice pursuant to Section 30.06.
In general, however, the AG's Opinion does address a point we have discussed here. The AG's Opinion is just that, an opinion. The AG does not venture to tell us what the law is -- he just tells us his opinion as to what the law is. If there is any lawyer in the State of Texas who should be qualified to tell us what the law is, it would be the Attorney General. But he refrains from doing so.
I think many of our Texican members might find it interesting to read the attached AG's Opinion. As I stated above, it is one of the few pieces of high-level advice we CHL-holders have available to us.
Enjoy California,
Jim
May I offer a palm branch?
We can find very little formal guidance about our issues from the highest levels in this great state of Texas. There are good reasons for that which we need not go into. Occasionally a court will issue an opinion which helps. Occasionally the DPS or other agency will issue an opinion which helps. Together they are few and far between.
We have been given a little help by our then-Attorney General, John Cornyn, who is now one of Texas's two United States Senators. Six years ago he issued a formal opinion which addressed one of the many issues having to do with our state's concealed handgun laws. Ironically enough, his opinion was issued in response to a question he was asked by a member of the state legislature which enacted the legislation. This might help point out how "clear" the law is.
To avoid unnecessarily and inordinately lengthening this post I have attached the AG's Opinion, View attachment 51142, which you may read at your leisure. While the AG addresses a specific question which is, at least so far, foreign to this thread, it does shed a great deal of light on one issue we have discussed here: the various ways of providing effective notice pursuant to Section 30.06.
In general, however, the AG's Opinion does address a point we have discussed here. The AG's Opinion is just that, an opinion. The AG does not venture to tell us what the law is -- he just tells us his opinion as to what the law is. If there is any lawyer in the State of Texas who should be qualified to tell us what the law is, it would be the Attorney General. But he refrains from doing so.
I think many of our Texican members might find it interesting to read the attached AG's Opinion. As I stated above, it is one of the few pieces of high-level advice we CHL-holders have available to us.
Enjoy California,
Jim
OP
OP
Grayrock
Member
WOW- what a lot of info. Thanks guys. I have made up my mind that I will abide by an invalid sign posted as it conveys the intent of the establishment. I do not want to be the test case. What I WILL try to do is change the mind of the people who put up the invalid sign in the 1st place. My question originated from the sign being posted at my church. Now I need help writing a letter to the church asking them to reconsider the posting of a 30.06 sign. Can someone help me out with a sample letter? Also, any facts and statistics to support my case would be greatly appreciated. I think the sign was initially put up in ignorance, but if I educate them as to how much safer they would be without the sign perhaps it might change the situation. Also, once they are aware of the classes CHL holders take and the background check that is done, it may make a difference. It doesn't hurt to try. Also- the old adage still goes that outlaws are not going to abide by the sign. If they insist on leaving it up, then I will insist that they redo all their signs to make them 100% compliant with Texas statute. Please help me craft an eloquent letter to my church.
- Status
