Texas 30.06 question

[TexasRifleman]

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.

Maybe you should take time to read this: http://tsra.com/docs/AboveTheLaw.pdf

The law clearly says you can carry a handgun in your car without a CHL in clear and unambiguous terms as well. It's also clear that DAs are ignoring the law and advising peace officers to arrest anyway.

Legislative intent AND the wording of the statutes are being tossed out the window. The 30.06 sign is no different if a DA decides he doesn't like it.

If you've been in law any time at all you know that things are NEVER as black and white as they appear from a distance.

 

[wdlsguy]

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, don't make matters worse for others by telling them how to / asking them to put up a legally binding sign. :banghead:

 

[Grayrock]

Seems to me that the concensus is that even if it is NOT a legally binding sign that you are still in trouble if you are caught disregarding it. I guess you have a pro bono legal team at your disposal. I do not.

 

[wdlsguy]

Seems to me that the concensus is that even if it is NOT a legally binding sign that you are still in trouble if you are caught disregarding it.

You might beat the rap, but you probably won't beat the ride.

I guess you have a pro bono legal team at your disposal.

Nope.

I do not.

Again, how does getting a possibly noncompliant 30.06 sign replaced with a definitely compliant 30.06 sign help anybody, including yourself? :banghead:

 

[Titan6]

USC Title 18 sign

Don't forget for federal property and leased property the title 18 sign is just as valid as any Texas sign.

You are likely to end up in big trouble these days for carrying on Federal Property where signs are posted even if there are no 30.06 signs.

 

[Grayrock]

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.

Again, how does getting a possibly noncompliant 30.06 sign replaced with a definitely compliant 30.06 sign help anybody, including yourself?

Because I figure rational minds will prevail. Once they are properly educated about the high moral standards and training of Texas CHL holders and realize their signs are not valid, that they will just decide to take tham all down instead of redoing them all. Perhaps I am dreaming. Nonetheless, it is not something to hurt your head about. So give me some facts and figures to hit 'em with!

 

[wdlsguy]

Because I figure rational minds will prevail.

Rational people probably wouldn't have posted the signs in the first place.

Once they are properly educated about the high moral standards and training of Texas CHL holders

A worthy endeavor.

and realize their signs are not valid

How does telling them this help anybody? They may very well be hardcore antis. May as well let them wallow in their own ignorance if that is the case.

that they will just decide to take tham all down instead of redoing them all.

Or they may replace them with unquestionably valid signs.

 

[Snarlingiron]

I would point out in my letter that the sign is totally unneccesary, since 46.035(6) clearly makes it illegal to carry a handgun into the church regardless of posted signs.


46.035(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

Same goes for a hospital as mentioned in on of the earlier posts in this thread.

Also, it has been brought to my attention that many signs are intentionally posted incorrectly. They are done this way to satisfy insurance, upper management, nervous employees, etc., and to still provide plausable deniability for the CHL holder. If you see one that is obviously in error, why on earth would you try to get it corrected?

The signs posted at Texas Liquor stores are an interesting point. They state that the unlicensed possesion of a handgun is a felony. When I first started to carry, my wife and I had the opportunity to visit a liquor store. As we approached the door, she spun around and with panic in her eyes said "Do you see that sign?". I replied "Yes I do, and I am LICENSED.

It is a complicated world.

 

[wdlsguy]

I would point out in my letter that the sign is totally unneccesary, since 46.035(6) clearly makes it illegal to carry a handgun into the church regardless of posted signs.

46.035(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

Same goes for a hospital as mentioned in on of the earlier posts in this thread.

Actually, the signs are necessary if they want to prohibit licensed carry:

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
...
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
...
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.
...
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
...

Also, it has been brought to my attention that many signs are intentionally posted incorrectly. They are done this way to satisfy insurance, upper management, nervous employees, etc., and to still provide plausable deniability for the CHL holder. If you see one that is obviously in error, why on earth would you try to get it corrected?

Yes!!!

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would point out in my letter that the sign is totally unneccesary, since 46.035(6) clearly makes it illegal to carry a handgun into the church regardless of posted signs.


46.035(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship.

Snarlingiron, you might REALLY want to go read the whole thing again.

You're WAAAAYYYY off base with that one.

That was changed MANY years ago.

It is a complicated world.

And quoting out of date statutes makes it even more so.

 

[Grayrock]

My goal is not to have them correct the sign, but to remove it. Any constructive thoughts on how best to convince them to do that?

 

[Snarlingiron]

Interesting. I am not aware that it was changed, but obviously I did miss the (i) section as so graciously pointed out by wdlsguy and somewhat less graciously by TexasSIGman. Mea Culpa. Now that I have had my misconceptions (I actually thought these areas were off limits regardless of posting or licensing) corrected, I may consider attending a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship. I am also relieved to know that I can carry when in the hospital. Anybody know where you can get some sort of holster that will work with one of those gowns?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Well I'm kind of grumpy when people give bad legal advice.

Yes its stupid to take legal advice from the Internet, but people do it anyway.

If you are gonna quote statutes, make darned sure you've read them.


As for carrying in the hospital, that only applies when you are visiting.

I don't know of any hospitals that don't have a no weapons clause in the mass of "stuff" you sign when you check in so carrying under the gown isn't gonna happen. Look in the fine print, its in there somewhere.

Arguments in another thread aside, I'd consider the no weapon clause on the registration form "notice" as required, therefore no sign needed for registered patients since you were already given notice when you checked in.

 

[Snarlingiron]

Well I'm kind of grumpy when people give bad legal advice.

I will limit my advice to my areas of expertise in the future. Those include the following:

1. Villiage Idiot (my family has a very long history in the business).
2. Shoelace aglets.
3. Obfuscated humor.

 

[57Coastie]

Texas SIGman once again astutely observes:

Arguments in another thread aside, I'd consider the no weapon clause on the registration form "notice" as required, therefore no sign needed for registered patients since you were already given notice when you checked in.

I do believe that some poor, or at least misleading, advice has been given here by some others, but I see nothing to be gained by taking names.

Some of the confusion might be cleared up, I would think, if there wasn't this hangup on whether or not a sign is "valid." I am speaking of confusion on the part of administrators, members of this forum, sadly, some CHL instructors, and the common citizen, whether he has a CHL or not.

"The sign," or "the 30.06 sign" is intended to give notice that a person having the authority to do so does not want you to carry into the premises if you have a CHL. Is the sign "valid" to communicate that thought to you? Of course.

Does a sign not complying with 30.06 give you the same degree of notice? For example, if it is in block letters only 1/2 inch high. Obviously this sign communicates that thought to you as well. Both signs are "valid" for the purpose of telling you that someone having authority over the premises doesn't want you to carry into the premises.

What is the difference? The difference is whether or not you have committed a Class A misdemeanor for criminal trespass if you ignore the sign and carry into the premises if you have not otherwise been given valid notice.

As pointed out by Sigman, the 30.06 sign is not the only way to give effective notice, the violation of which is criminal. "Effective notice" can be given by the 30.06 sign, it can be given orally, e.g. "Hey, Bubba, you cannot carry a concealed weapon into this building even if you have a CHL," or it can be given by providing you with a card "or other document" on which is written the 30.06 language, and in the latter case it certainly does not have to be printed in absurdly large letters.

I have gone at some length here in order to make one simple point, which clearly is not understood by some Texas THRs. A sign which does not conform with 30.06 does not necessarily mean that a CHL holder can carry concealed into the premises. Broad statements have been made to that effect, depending on the bumper-sticker words "valid sign." Those two words do not dispose of the question.

Best,

Jim

 

[TexasRifleman]

Some of the confusion might be cleared up, I would think, if there wasn't this hangup on whether or not a sign is "valid."

Well for the record, up until recent events occurred I was one of those arguing that the statutes were very clear and the sign had to be as stated.

It seems obvious to a clear thinking person that the Penal Code "says what it says" and in a pretty clear manner.

Until I read this.....

http://tsra.com/docs/AboveTheLaw.pdf

I've posted the link a few times and I encourage Texas residents to read it.
This shows how some District Attorneys and police leaders are ignoring Texas handguns laws and specifically advising police to break the law and arrest and "let the DA deal with the legal niceties" later.

It woke me up a good deal to how things really are. Just because the statute says one thing, and very clearly, doesn't mean you won't be arrested and put through all manner of hardship. That the arrest ends up being found not good later on doesn't really help things.

I've been in a bad mood ever since TSRA sent emails out earlier in the week with a link to that, so my apologies to anyone I've been rude too, Snarlingiron and any others.

I'm pissed.

 

[Snarlingiron]

Some of the confusion might be cleared up, I would think, if there wasn't this hangup on whether or not a sign is "valid." I am speaking of confusion on the part of administrators, members of this forum, sadly, some CHL instructors, and the common citizen, whether he has a CHL or not.

While you think you are describing the solution, you are really just describing why it is a problem. The Texas State Legislature in its attempt to clarify what valid notification is has only served to confuse the matter further. I believe that an argument that the sign did not meet the requirements as set out in the statutes would very likely meet with success. It might not, but it is obviously highly arguable as evidenced by this thread.

It really comes down to the fact that "The Law" is not hard and fast. It is fluid. It can change with each judge and jury and set of circumstances that it meets. When someone tries to lay out very concrete answers to what "The Law" says, he is deluding himself.

I think the best illustration is a story my boss tells. As a very young man he was working in the Oil and Gas industry, and was involved with the real estate end of the business. He approached one of the company's attorneys one day and asked, "What does the law say about XYZ situation?". The attorney replied "What do you need it to say?"

It's sort of like what the meaning of the word "is", is.

I am firmly convinced that "The Law" is pretty maleable. The degree of maleability is in direct proportion to your financial statement and / or position. I believe this is the source of much frustration. We would all like to know exactly what is what especially with regard to CHL. The painfully obvious fact is we really don't know what is going to happen until it goes through the court system. Even then we will only know what happened, not what will happen again in the future.

 

[57Coastie]

Sigman says

I'm pissed.

Me too, Sigman. I've had my say on another thread about our local instance with Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal. Until you shared your TSRA link I was woefully ignorant that Rosenthal was not a unique arrogant case.

Jim

 

[57Coastie]

Snarlingiron says:

I believe that an argument that the sign did not meet the requirements as set out in the statutes would very likely meet with success. It might not, but it is obviously highly arguable as evidenced by this thread.

If I implied that a nonconforming 30.06 sign, standing alone, with effective notice not coming from elsewhere, would support a charge of criminal trespass, I apologize. I did not intend to do so.

Jim

 

[Snarlingiron]

Ok, TexasSIGman, I thank you. I got the same email, and as sometimes happens in our busy workaday world, I just haven't gotten a roundtuit. I am appalled! I grew up in Waco, worked a great in Temple, and now live in Fort Worth. Everyone of them showed up in the list as having clear directive to break the law.

I'm pissed, too!

I quote myself:

I am firmly convinced that "The Law" is pretty maleable. The degree of maleability is in direct proportion to your financial statement and / or position.

This is really the biggest issue we face in this country today and it is happening all over the place. Those in positions of power dispense whatever they think the law should be with confidence that there is little the common Joe can do about it (Nagen, Bloomberg, etc.). Second amendment rights are just a small part of it. We had better get ourselves mobilized, or we have lost a great nation.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yeah I'm sorry I was kinda pissy but I've been in a bad mood since I read that thing.

Jim Zumbo? I stayed out of that completely, but here we have District Attorneys actually so brazen, IN TEXAS, going on record that they disagree with state law regarding firearms so much that they are advising law enforcement to violate the law and arrest people anyway, regardless of the legislation.

I have always been on the fence regarding the ACLU, but I sent them money this morning. Never thought I'd see that day.......

This scares me much more than an AWB II or any other crap going on.

 

[cpileri]

how much would this cost a guy?

So lets say that I am carrying a properly and completely concealed handgun in church, where no effective notice has been given in any way.

I am within the law and I am absolutely certain of that!

But some cop recognizes me from the range and guesses correclty that I have a pistol on me, and arrests me anyway. knowing I am in the right, I don't put up a fuss at all. When asked (if I am asked) I say i want a free court-appointed attorney. I tell my new lawyer I plea 'not guilty' and save him the trouble of research by handing him a copy of the code:

"...§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER....(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.... "

When I finally stand before a judge, I get the charges dropped and drive home.

OK, nevermind that i can't take time off work to try this out, what could ahppen that i don't know about? How much out of pocket could this cost me if i did the free lawyer route?

(pls dont make stuff up like "you could have something ELSE illegal on you" or the crooked cop could PLANT something on you. Lets leave it at the concealed pistol only- and I am otherwise doing nothing else illegal in any state.)

Just curious.
C-

 

[57Coastie]

cpileri says:

Just curious.

I cannot answer that question, and I am confident that I am unanimous in that.

But, to perhaps assist you in answering the question yourself, consider:

a. Criminal trespass in violation of the Texas statute we have been discussing is not a felony. It is a Class A misdemeanor.

b. Free lawyer?

c. You seem to be assuming that the LEO knows he is arresting you for doing something he knows is legal. Even if you are right, don't expect the LEO to be so ignorant that he will take the stand on just this charge. When you chuckle about not saying something about him charging you with something else you are hiding from reality. Your question is unreal. In the case you postulate, if the DA takes the case to the judge you will find the book thrown at you.

A hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question freely rendered. Or, if you prefer, a real answer to an unreal question.

Jim

 

[cpileri]

okaaayyyyy

Well then, can someone who IS familiar with the procedures and steps involved in the average case of criminal trespass for the situation described (*) shed some light on what might be fairly likely to take place, and how much this would cost the accused in time, money, and /or freedom along the way?


(*) i.e of a TX CHL holder carrying a properly concealed handgun without being given effective notice. Notwithstanding wether the officer is ignorant or willfully arresting me for something he thinks is or knows is not, illegal.

C-

 

[wdlsguy]

So lets say that I am carrying a properly and completely concealed handgun in church, where no effective notice has been given in any way.

I am within the law and I am absolutely certain of that!

But some cop recognizes me from the range and guesses correclty that I have a pistol on me, and arrests me anyway.

This doesn't strike me as a realistic scenario at all. First, I don't see why the officer would approach you. Second, I don't see why the officer would arrest you. A call to the officer's supervisor should be sufficient to set him straight if he did start to arrest you. I don't think officers like making arrests that get laughed out of court.