VERBAL IS NOT THE SAME AS ORAL

[CWOOD]

Perhaps it is a nit-picky point, but words mean certain things.

"Verbal" is not the same thing as "oral". Interchanging the two words as if they were synonyms is a common mistake and is a hard habit to break. An analogy might be to compare pistol, revolver, handgun, and firearm. All pistols, revolvers and handguns are firearms, but not all firearms are pistols, revolvers or handguns. Additionally, all pistols and revolvers are handguns but not all handguns are pistols, even though 'pistol' is a term commonly misused to include revolvers as well.

Verbal refers to any communication, written or spoken, which uses language.

Oral refers to things that are said, and does not include written language.

Words on a sign, like a 30.06 sign or other written notice constitutes a 'verbal' notice. Likewise, if someone tells you that you cannot carry in a particular location, that person has given you 'verbal' notice which also constitutes 'oral' notice. The sign,the card and conversation are all 'verbal', but only the conversation is 'oral'.

If you carefully read PC 30.06 in addition to the sign, and other written notice, the law references 'ORAL' notice, which is somebody telling you what you cannot do, in this case.

When dealing with the law, it is important to use the proper terms so as to prevent serious errors as well as minor misunderstandings.

In summary, VERBAL can refer to written or spoken communication using language.

ORAL only refers to the spoken word.

[bat1]

Perhaps it is a nit-picky point, but words mean certain things.

"Verbal" is not the same thing as "oral". Interchanging the two words as if they were synonyms is a common mistake and is a hard habit to break. An analogy might be to compare pistol, revolver, handgun, and firearm. All pistols, revolvers and handguns are firearms, but not all firearms are pistols, revolvers or handguns. Additionally, all pistols and revolvers are handguns but not all handguns are pistols, even though 'pistol' is a term commonly misused to include revolvers as well.

Verbal refers to any communication, written or spoken, which uses language.

Oral refers to things that are said, and does not include written language.

Words on a sign, like a 30.06 sign or other written notice constitutes a 'verbal' notice. Likewise, if someone tells you that you cannot carry in a particular location, that person has given you 'verbal' notice which also constitutes 'oral' notice. The sign,the card and conversation are all 'verbal', but only the conversation is 'oral'.

If you carefully read PC 30.06 in addition to the sign, and other written notice, the law references 'ORAL' notice, which is somebody telling you what you cannot do, in this case.

When dealing with the law, it is important to use the proper terms so as to prevent serious errors as well as minor misunderstandings.

In summary, VERBAL can refer to written or spoken communication using language.

ORAL only refers to the spoken word.

Humm, and your point

It does not matter, if someone give me, shows me or displays a "Verbal" notice -- I can NOT carry...
IF someone gives me a "oral" notice -- I can NOT carry ..

I the terms "Verbal" and "oral" in the end results, is the same -- I can NOT carry...

BAT

[srothstein]

No bat1, there is an important difference. If the verbal notice is oral, it can be any wording. But if the verbal notice is in any written form, it must have the words written in the law for 30.06 to have any effect. If the written verbal notice is posted n a wall or similar object so it becomes a sign, it must also have toher qualifications (size of print, etc.) but even a letter that is written and mailed to you must use the legal words to be enforceable by the court.

[bat1]

If I work somewhere, and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ? Of course I will not be a test case

I will agree that a "POSTED SIGN" 30.06 must be compliant .. But a written or company policy can just state "no guns" , is this not correct?

You Say Tomato : I Say Tomahto

BAT... Hummm...

[Skiprr]

If I work somewhere, and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ? Of course I will not be a test case

I will agree that a "POSTED SIGN" 30.06 must be compliant .. But a written or company policy can just state "no guns" , is this not correct?

Nope. That is not correct. PC §30.06 is quite explicit: if notice is given in writing--in any form of writing--to be effective it must read, exactly: "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."

I do understand why we often say "verbal" when we really mean "oral," but in support of CWOOD's distinction, try searching all 71 chapters of the Texas Penal Code for the word "verbal," and you will find it only three times: in Chapter 9 saying that use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone; in Chapter 39 defining sexual harassment; and in Chapter 42 concerning the disruption of a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering. That's it; only three times. In Title 7, Offenses Against Property, which includes Chapters 28 through 35A, the word "verbal" is never used.

[Teamless]

Nope. That is not correct. PC §30.06 is quite explicit: if notice is given in writing--in any form of writing--to be effective it must read, exactly: "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."

- but only for the legality of it
and to go one step further;

and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ?

If their policy is "no guns", that means that you CAN be fired if they so choose to do so, if caught with one, but you are not breaking any law, unless they ALSO have told you verbally (orally in your meaning) "guns are not allowed' or "no guns", etc
Remembering that an "oral" notification can be very simplistic, but the written word must be verbatim to the 30.06 statement.

[KaiserB]

If I work somewhere, and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ? Of course I will not be a test case

I will agree that a "POSTED SIGN" 30.06 must be compliant .. But a written or company policy can just state "no guns" , is this not correct?

Nope. That is not correct. PC §30.06 is quite explicit: if notice is given in writing--in any form of writing--to be effective it must read, exactly: "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."

I do understand why we often say "verbal" when we really mean "oral," but in support of CWOOD's distinction, try searching all 71 chapters of the Texas Penal Code for the word "verbal," and you will find it only three times: in Chapter 9 saying that use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone; in Chapter 39 defining sexual harassment; and in Chapter 42 concerning the disruption of a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering. That's it; only three times. In Title 7, Offenses Against Property, which includes Chapters 28 through 35A, the word "verbal" is never used.

GC §411.203 Rights of Employers

http://home.earthlink.net/~rickhgtx/bangun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Attorney General for the State of Texas issued an opinion on August 30, 1995 in which his office says that the intent of Section 32 is ambiguous. Because the word "employer" is used, it can be strongly argued that Section 32 relates only to employers posting signs that prohibit employees from bringing concealed-weapons onto the business premises. On the other hand, if the section had said "... prohibit employees ...," instead of "... prohibit persons...," there would be little doubt about the intent.

But, the AG's opinion goes on to say that the legislative history of Senate Bill 60, however, did not intend to preclude private property owners from excluding license holders carrying concealed handguns.

[Skiprr]

GC §411.203 Rights of Employers

http://home.earthlink.net/~rickhgtx/bangun.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Attorney General for the State of Texas issued an opinion on August 30, 1995 in which his office says that the intent of Section 32 is ambiguous. Because the word "employer" is used, it can be strongly argued that Section 32 relates only to employers posting signs that prohibit employees from bringing concealed-weapons onto the business premises. On the other hand, if the section had said "... prohibit employees ...," instead of "... prohibit persons...," there would be little doubt about the intent.

But, the AG's opinion goes on to say that the legislative history of Senate Bill 60, however, did not intend to preclude private property owners from excluding license holders carrying concealed handguns.

Your point is...

[The Annoyed Man]

If I work somewhere, and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ? Of course I will not be a test case

I will agree that a "POSTED SIGN" 30.06 must be compliant .. But a written or company policy can just state "no guns" , is this not correct?

You Say Tomato : I Say Tomahto

BAT... Hummm...

You're talking about company policy, versus the law. Two different things, with two different systems of justice.

Example: Until the passage of SB 321, your employer could fire you for having a firearm stored in your car, even though they did not post a 30.06 sign. Post passage of SB 321, they can't fire you for storing your weapon in your car (except within certain narrowly defined limits, such as secured parking lots at refineries). Post passage of SB 321, your company's anti-gun regs no longer extend to their parking lots.

Also, that simple "NO GUNS" sign of your employer's may work to keep you disarmed inside the premises, but it has no impact on me whatsoever. To disarm me before entering their premises, they still have to A) post a valid 30.06 sign at all entrances, or B) deliver the wording of 30.06 to me as a written communication, or C) give me verbal notice at the door.

[The Annoyed Man]

If I work somewhere, and in the company policy, states "NO GUNS" I believe that is all is needed ? Of course I will not be a test case

I will agree that a "POSTED SIGN" 30.06 must be compliant .. But a written or company policy can just state "no guns" , is this not correct?

Nope. That is not correct. PC §30.06 is quite explicit: if notice is given in writing--in any form of writing--to be effective it must read, exactly: "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."

I do understand why we often say "verbal" when we really mean "oral," but in support of CWOOD's distinction, try searching all 71 chapters of the Texas Penal Code for the word "verbal," and you will find it only three times: in Chapter 9 saying that use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone; in Chapter 39 defining sexual harassment; and in Chapter 42 concerning the disruption of a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering. That's it; only three times. In Title 7, Offenses Against Property, which includes Chapters 28 through 35A, the word "verbal" is never used.

Skiprr, I think you left something off..... It has to be in both English and Spanish, doesn't it, for it to be valid?

[sjfcontrol]

To disarm me before entering their premises, they still have to A) post a valid 30.06 sign at all entrances, or ...

Nope. Just has to be "conspicuously displayed". Nothing in the law says it has to be at the entrance at all.

[Skiprr]

PC §30.06 is quite explicit: if notice is given in writing--in any form of writing--to be effective it must read, exactly: "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."

I do understand why we often say "verbal" when we really mean "oral," but in support of CWOOD's distinction, try searching all 71 chapters of the Texas Penal Code for the word "verbal," and you will find it only three times: in Chapter 9 saying that use of force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone; in Chapter 39 defining sexual harassment; and in Chapter 42 concerning the disruption of a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering. That's it; only three times. In Title 7, Offenses Against Property, which includes Chapters 28 through 35A, the word "verbal" is never used.

Skiprr, I think you left something off..... It has to be in both English and Spanish, doesn't it, for it to be valid?

Only if it is a "sign posted on the property" [PC §30.06(c)(3)(B)]. If in any other form of written communication, only the English text needs to be presented.

[sjfcontrol]

Skiprr, I think you left something off..... It has to be in both English and Spanish, doesn't it, for it to be valid?

The "english and spanish" is part of the definition of a sign, along with 1" block letters, contrasting colors and conspicuously displayed.
That is not necessary for "written communications" that might be handed to you.

[Teamless]

"conspicuously displayed"

correct, but then the issue is, what if it is displayed at the "personnel gate or door" and you go through a different entrance.
Should you be outed, and it is at the one entrance, which is conspicuously displayed, I would not have seen it.
So for them to be sure, it 'should' be at all entrances so regardless of which you went in, you are notified

[sjfcontrol]

"conspicuously displayed"

correct, but then the issue is, what if it is displayed at the "personnel gate or door" and you go through a different entrance.
Should you be outed, and it is at the one entrance, which is conspicuously displayed, I would not have seen it.
So for them to be sure, it 'should' be at all entrances so regardless of which you went in, you are notified

I'm not arguing with you.
I'm just saying that TAM said: "To disarm me...sign at all entrances", and that's not what the law says.
It had nothing to do with what "should" be done.

Oh, and again, the law doesn't say it needs to be at an entrance, either.