another 30.06 question

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:00 pm

CZp10 wrote:
MechAg94 wrote:Perhaps I missed it in the preceding pages I didn't read, but has anyone ever been prosecuted for carrying in a premises covered by a 30.06 sign?

I searched the interweb, and can’t find one, but I don’t have access to criminal records.
I know of people who have been asked to leave, but don’t know of any who were arrested even though they left.


This question has come up from time to time on these boards and I don't believe that anyone has been able to find a documented case where someone was charged with a 30.06 violation when they left after being asked to do so. Realistically, it makes sense that the odds of this would be pretty low when you consider that all of the following would have to occur before someone "took the ride":

LTC'er fails to notice, or deliberately ignores, a valid 30.06 sign.

Manager / someone with authority over the premises notices that someone is carrying a concealed gun (or a customer notices and alerts a manager, etc).

Manager decides to call the police instead of just politely and quietly asking the LTC'er to leave.

LEO arrives before the person leaves.

LEO confronts LTC'er who agrees to leave immediately, but the LEO decides that they still want to issue a citation to the LTC'er even though the issue is now resolved. Or even less likely, the LEO decides to take the LTC'er into custody and issues the citation at the police station.

Each of these steps is unlikely to various degrees. Personally I think the odds that all of these individually unlikely events occur is very remote. You probably have better odds of Nancy Pelosi deciding to join the NRA.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

LDB415
Senior Member
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:01 am
Location: Houston south suburb

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby LDB415 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:06 pm

I'm late to the party and my gnat's attention span isn't going to cooperate with reading everything so apologies if it's covered. I believe the law needs to be amended so that it does only apply if one fails to leave after being requested to leave. Signage, even proper 30.06 signage, is not always adequate, especially when placed on glass. A couple of times I went about my business somewhere with automatic doors. They were open and I went in, as did numerous other people. On my way out, from the other side, with different/better lighting, and with the doors closed, the key factor, I saw the 30.06 on the doors. When they were open and viewed from the outside where they slid behind the fixed glass with signage, posters etc. they were not noticeable.

Actually, I take that back. The law should be amended to say that anyone having passed the complete vetting process for a CHL is allowed to carry anywhere at any time with no exceptions.
NRA Life Member, CCC Life Member, GSSF Member
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.
Common sense is only right wing if you are too far to the left.
A pistol without a round chambered is an expensive paper weight.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:15 pm

LDB415 wrote:I'm late to the party and my gnat's attention span isn't going to cooperate with reading everything so apologies if it's covered. I believe the law needs to be amended so that it does only apply if one fails to leave after being requested to leave. Signage, even proper 30.06 signage, is not always adequate, especially when placed on glass. A couple of times I went about my business somewhere with automatic doors. They were open and I went in, as did numerous other people. On my way out, from the other side, with different/better lighting, and with the doors closed, the key factor, I saw the 30.06 on the doors. When they were open and viewed from the outside where they slid behind the fixed glass with signage, posters etc. they were not noticeable.

Actually, I take that back. The law should be amended to say that anyone having passed the complete vetting process for a CHL is allowed to carry anywhere at any time with no exceptions.


:iagree:

My philosophy is that you should be able to tell anyone to leave your property at any time and for any reason. But if you put out a general welcome by having a store, etc., then you need to actually tell people to leave. No conditional consent to entry like "you can come in as long as you preferred Ginger to Mary Anne, and if I find out otherwise, you are going straight to jail" or other bull like whether you are carrying a wallet, or a gun, that I can't even see.

BTW, it is not clear that white letters on clear glass meet the 30.06 signage requirement for "contrasting colors", and many folks would probably argue that a disappearing sign which may well be hidden behind a display because the doors slid open, does not meet the requirement for "conspicuously displayed".
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby Pawpaw » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:52 pm

According to the DPS report for 2016:

5 license holders were convicted for "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD"

and

5 license holders were convicted for "UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON".

I don't know what those would be if not 30.06/30.07 violations. :headscratch

There was also one license holder convicted for "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD ALCH PREM/CORR FA". I assume that's a 51% violation.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:12 pm

Pawpaw wrote:According to the DPS report for 2016:

5 license holders were convicted for "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD"

and

5 license holders were convicted for "UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPON".

I don't know what those would be if not 30.06/30.07 violations. :headscratch

There was also one license holder convicted for "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD ALCH PREM/CORR FA". I assume that's a 51% violation.


According to the [Pre-paid legal service] Forum https://forum.[Pre-paid legal service].com/index.php?topic=281.0, the "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD" notation on the DPS report indicates a violation of 46.035. The "Unlawful Carrying Weapon" could include 30.06/30.07 violations but must also include other things since 99.5% of all persons convicted were non-LTC holders. I'm guessing it may also include prohibited weapons, like brass knuckles and the like.

Unfortunately, we still don't have an answer as to whether anyone has ever been convicted of a 30.06 violation when they agreed to leave after being notified that they were in violation.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby ninjabread » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:43 pm

I'll believe somebody was prosecuted when a case is cited. Until then it's internet rumor, like Bigfoot. :mrgreen:
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


MechAg94
Senior Member
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:28 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby MechAg94 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 9:56 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
LDB415 wrote:I'm late to the party and my gnat's attention span isn't going to cooperate with reading everything so apologies if it's covered. I believe the law needs to be amended so that it does only apply if one fails to leave after being requested to leave. Signage, even proper 30.06 signage, is not always adequate, especially when placed on glass. A couple of times I went about my business somewhere with automatic doors. They were open and I went in, as did numerous other people. On my way out, from the other side, with different/better lighting, and with the doors closed, the key factor, I saw the 30.06 on the doors. When they were open and viewed from the outside where they slid behind the fixed glass with signage, posters etc. they were not noticeable.

Actually, I take that back. The law should be amended to say that anyone having passed the complete vetting process for a CHL is allowed to carry anywhere at any time with no exceptions.


:iagree:

My philosophy is that you should be able to tell anyone to leave your property at any time and for any reason. But if you put out a general welcome by having a store, etc., then you need to actually tell people to leave. No conditional consent to entry like "you can come in as long as you preferred Ginger to Mary Anne, and if I find out otherwise, you are going straight to jail" or other bull like whether you are carrying a wallet, or a gun, that I can't even see.

BTW, it is not clear that white letters on clear glass meet the 30.06 signage requirement for "contrasting colors", and many folks would probably argue that a disappearing sign which may well be hidden behind a display because the doors slid open, does not meet the requirement for "conspicuously displayed".

I have seen a hospital posted 30.06 and 30.07, but the letters was on the inside of tinted glass on windows that were 3 or 4 feet off to the side of the main double door entrance. It was visible, but the tinting meant it didn't really jump out at you. If there was foot traffic in and out such that you were watching where you were walking, I think most people wouldn't notice it.


thetexan
Senior Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby thetexan » Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:49 pm

There have been several posts since my last. A few of these as well am many of the original 5 pages of posts makes me think that I may not be making my point well or clearly and that the main point about all of this issue is being missed.

A sign, any sign, that says things like "No Weapons allowed", "no shirt, no shoes, no service", "no dogs allowed", "no red hats", etc very clearly express the sign poster's (typically the owner) dislike and absolute unwillingness to suffer those things in his establishment. There is no disagreement there.

The question is this...does the expression of that dislike (as written with the precise language used in the above examples) have any LEGAL prerequisite authority upon which to charge someone with the CRIMINAL act of entering that establishment without the consent of the owner? Has the owner met the requirement, whatever that may be, to convey LEGALLY his prohibition TO ENTRY to that person.

Here is the logic, and as I tried to show with the logic used in the above cases (there are many more), that I think the legislature uses in their laws and that the appellate courts use to analyze this...

All three trespass sections, 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 state that to notify someone of prohibition to entry the notification must "provides notice", in the case of 30.05, "... that entry is forbidden. ...", in the case of 30.06 "...that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun [is] forbidden. ...", and in the case of 30.07 "...that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun [is] forbidden. ...". In all three cases the notice must include THAT ENTRY IS FORBIDDEN. Remember, this is all a statutory foundation for a criminal charge of trespass.

In 30.05, the signs must "...[indicate] that entry is forbidden. ...". In the case of 30.06 and 30.07 written documents and signs the language is specified "...may not enter this property..."

It is clear that in order to charge someone with the crime of trespass they must be notified, in LEGALLY CLEAR and precise terms, and getting the point across that...

you personally can not come in
you can't enter my establishment
in your present condition whatever that may be (other than statutorily discriminatory) you can not enter

Note that in all cases of trespass, except for handguns in .06 and .07, it is not necessary to give a reason for the prohibition. And in .06 and .07 that reason only need be given in written documents and signage but there is no stipulation with the oral notification. I don't know if it is implied that it is required in the case of oral but it is not stipulated.

So, from my research, it appears clear that to establish the element of notification required in all three sections as it relates to written documentation or signage there must be clear language prohibiting entry. This written notice must be specific, unequivocal, and speak directly to the prohibition to entry....if you are going to be able to charge someone with a criminal offense.

The foundation for the charge of the criminal offense can not be based on inference or suggestion or poor wording, especially where precise wording is specified.

A sign that says "no sandals" tells me exactly what it says. I can not wear sandals in this establishment. OK, I know now that the owner does not want sandals in his place of business. Morally, I may want to respect his wishes and not come in. But if not, I have not been notified that I may not enter. There are many, too many to think of, possibilities for the interpretation of this. Here are a few...

I might enter with sandals but I won't be served
I might enter with sandals and be asked (notified) to leave
I might enter with sandals and given a pair of dress shoes much like many fine dining establishments provide dinner jackets for those without

and I could think of a hundred more. So could any of you.

The only language that can not be misinterpreted is language that clearly states an unequivocal message...."you may not enter". That sort of unequivocal language can not be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or defended against (except in the case of legal discrimination).

So the point is that while we may understand that an owner may not like red hats he must abide by the law if he wants to be able to prefer criminal charges of trespass, and notify according to statute.

As to whether the appellate courts will take a stand of precision as to notification...their history is that they do as evidenced in a thousand non gun-related cases where precision of language is specified such as business, banking, labor, etc. To think that they would take a more sloppy approach to analysis when it comes to trespass is not a good bet. And, I have given three cases where, if you study the entire case, their analysis indicates this.

I agree that if I see a sign that says "no weapons" that I know the owner does not like guns. Too bad he didn't honor and respect my rights as a patron by notifying me BY LAW.

I agree that if I see a sign that says "no red hats" that I know the owner does not like red hats. Too bad he won't be able to charge me with trespass because he didn't notify me that entry was forbidden.

But in all cases other than statutory discrimination, IF THE OWNER DOES IT ACCORDING TO STATUTE, (and remember, orally, there is no stipulation as to how it is said) he can prohibit entry FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON. And, except in .06 and .07, he doesn't have to give you a reason why.

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby Soccerdad1995 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:25 am

thetexan wrote:There have been several posts since my last. A few of these as well am many of the original 5 pages of posts makes me think that I may not be making my point well or clearly and that the main point about all of this issue is being missed.

A sign, any sign, that says things like "No Weapons allowed", "no shirt, no shoes, no service", "no dogs allowed", "no red hats", etc very clearly express the sign poster's (typically the owner) dislike and absolute unwillingness to suffer those things in his establishment. There is no disagreement there.

The question is this...does the expression of that dislike (as written with the precise language used in the above examples) have any LEGAL prerequisite authority upon which to charge someone with the CRIMINAL act of entering that establishment without the consent of the owner? Has the owner met the requirement, whatever that may be, to convey LEGALLY his prohibition TO ENTRY to that person.

Here is the logic, and as I tried to show with the logic used in the above cases (there are many more), that I think the legislature uses in their laws and that the appellate courts use to analyze this...

All three trespass sections, 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 state that to notify someone of prohibition to entry the notification must "provides notice", in the case of 30.05, "... that entry is forbidden. ...", in the case of 30.06 "...that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun [is] forbidden. ...", and in the case of 30.07 "...that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun [is] forbidden. ...". In all three cases the notice must include THAT ENTRY IS FORBIDDEN. Remember, this is all a statutory foundation for a criminal charge of trespass.

In 30.05, the signs must "...[indicate] that entry is forbidden. ...". In the case of 30.06 and 30.07 written documents and signs the language is specified "...may not enter this property..."

It is clear that in order to charge someone with the crime of trespass they must be notified, in LEGALLY CLEAR and precise terms, and getting the point across that...

you personally can not come in
you can't enter my establishment
in your present condition whatever that may be (other than statutorily discriminatory) you can not enter

Note that in all cases of trespass, except for handguns in .06 and .07, it is not necessary to give a reason for the prohibition. And in .06 and .07 that reason only need be given in written documents and signage but there is no stipulation with the oral notification. I don't know if it is implied that it is required in the case of oral but it is not stipulated.

So, from my research, it appears clear that to establish the element of notification required in all three sections as it relates to written documentation or signage there must be clear language prohibiting entry. This written notice must be specific, unequivocal, and speak directly to the prohibition to entry....if you are going to be able to charge someone with a criminal offense.

The foundation for the charge of the criminal offense can not be based on inference or suggestion or poor wording, especially where precise wording is specified.

A sign that says "no sandals" tells me exactly what it says. I can not wear sandals in this establishment. OK, I know now that the owner does not want sandals in his place of business. Morally, I may want to respect his wishes and not come in. But if not, I have not been notified that I may not enter. There are many, too many to think of, possibilities for the interpretation of this. Here are a few...

I might enter with sandals but I won't be served
I might enter with sandals and be asked (notified) to leave
I might enter with sandals and given a pair of dress shoes much like many fine dining establishments provide dinner jackets for those without

and I could think of a hundred more. So could any of you.

The only language that can not be misinterpreted is language that clearly states an unequivocal message...."you may not enter". That sort of unequivocal language can not be misinterpreted, misconstrued, or defended against (except in the case of legal discrimination).

So the point is that while we may understand that an owner may not like red hats he must abide by the law if he wants to be able to prefer criminal charges of trespass, and notify according to statute.

As to whether the appellate courts will take a stand of precision as to notification...their history is that they do as evidenced in a thousand non gun-related cases where precision of language is specified such as business, banking, labor, etc. To think that they would take a more sloppy approach to analysis when it comes to trespass is not a good bet. And, I have given three cases where, if you study the entire case, their analysis indicates this.

I agree that if I see a sign that says "no weapons" that I know the owner does not like guns. Too bad he didn't honor and respect my rights as a patron by notifying me BY LAW.

I agree that if I see a sign that says "no red hats" that I know the owner does not like red hats. Too bad he won't be able to charge me with trespass because he didn't notify me that entry was forbidden.

But in all cases other than statutory discrimination, IF THE OWNER DOES IT ACCORDING TO STATUTE, (and remember, orally, there is no stipulation as to how it is said) he can prohibit entry FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON. And, except in .06 and .07, he doesn't have to give you a reason why.

tex



Tex - Thank you for a very informative post.

I think the confusion arises from things like a "circle / slash" sign. To me, such a sign is the pictorial equivalent to the words "No ___ allowed", or even "No ____". Per your above, then, that would not provide sufficient legal notice to support a criminal trespass charge if someone walked past the picture with whatever offending object or condition it specified. But I believe that prior to the passage of 30.06, there was a Texas AG opinion that such signs did provide sufficient legal notice to support a criminal trespass charge, as it related to the possession of a legally carried handgun. Presumably, that same AG opinion would also apply to any other offensive object in a "circle / slash" sign, be it red hats, LEO's, or whatever.

Are you saying that you believe a "circle / slash" sign does not provide legally sufficient notice that I may not enter if I have whatever is in such a picture? If so, then I am in complete agreement.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


thetexan
Senior Member
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby thetexan » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:57 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Tex - Thank you for a very informative post.

I think the confusion arises from things like a "circle / slash" sign. To me, such a sign is the pictorial equivalent to the words "No ___ allowed", or even "No ____". Per your above, then, that would not provide sufficient legal notice to support a criminal trespass charge if someone walked past the picture with whatever offending object or condition it specified. But I believe that prior to the passage of 30.06, there was a Texas AG opinion that such signs did provide sufficient legal notice to support a criminal trespass charge, as it related to the possession of a legally carried handgun. Presumably, that same AG opinion would also apply to any other offensive object in a "circle / slash" sign, be it red hats, LEO's, or whatever.

Are you saying that you believe a "circle / slash" sign does not provide legally sufficient notice that I may not enter if I have whatever is in such a picture? If so, then I am in complete agreement.


There is no question that a "circle / slash" sign DOES NOT meet the requirements of 30.06 and 30.07 because the requirement for sign compliancy are so very clearly given. Even though 30.05 does not specify the language required to notify someone that entry is forbidden it does require...that...the intruder must receive notice THAT entry is forbidden.

If an owner places a sign of sandals with a red line through the sandals, legally, the issue has to be determined as to whether or not notice of forbidden entry by the intruder has been given. The prosecutor will make his case and the defending attorney will make his. The question will be...what does the sign state...and...what legal inference can be derived from a graphic.

To be notice the legal inference would have to be that the sign, in effect, states that anyone wearing sandals are forbidden from entering the property. The defense attorney will argue that the sign simply states that anyone wearing sandals will be asked to remove his sandals since bare feet are not addressed. You can see the ambiguity that arises from a graphic. So, in the above scenario, a person walking past a "no sandals" sign and the owner comes to the table and informs the person that he can not wear sandals in his establishment. The person then obliges and removes his sandals right there on the spot becoming bare footed. The irritated owner then asks the person to leave. It is at that precise moment, and not a second earlier, that the requirements for notification against trespass has occurred.

At that point the person must leave. Not because he was wearing sandals but because the owner told him to leave. Notice the owner did not give a reason...just leave.

It is clear from the language of 30.05, .06. and .07 that any notice of forbidden entry must indicate that entry is forbidden. In other words the notice must in some way indicate that "YOU, may not enter". Not "YOU may not wear sandals" or "YOU may not NOT wear shirts or shoes". Only an indication that YOU, PERSONALLY, do not have my permission to enter meets the requirement as per the statute.

I think we agree.

tex
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA Pistol Instructor, CFI, CFII, MEI Instructor Pilot


Return to “New to CHL?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest