How THOROUGHLY does one have to seek out 30.06 at entrances?

[ATDM]

As I understand correctly, a business has to post 30.06 signs in clearly visible areas at ALL entrances. However, I have been to a couple of places, in which I didn't realize 30.06 signs were posted until after I entered them, and in one case after I left the establishment.

I realize that it may be a gray area, and if arrested, the case will probably be dropped due to the obscurity of the signs. However, I don't want to have to go through that.

I know better than to ask verbally, but I do want to be informed.

For example, if I go to a hospital through one of its dozens upon dozens entrances and don't see the 30.06 at my particular choice of entrance; do I have to go to the main entrance first to make sure that they don't have the sign posted there? Or can I simply proceed and rely on the fact that they didn't post the sign at my entrance?

Any other thoughts on the subject?

Thanks.

[cb1000rider]

I think the definitive answer is "it depends".
It depends on:
1) The officer that is called when you have an accidental exposure.
2) The DA whose job it is to prosecute you if you're arrested.
3) The judge or jury that gets chosen if the DA chooses to prosecute you.

Personally, if there is a 30.06 sign that I can find, even if I have to hunt for it.. Or even if I know it's not posted at all entrances - it shows me the "intent" of the ownership. I'm going to respect the intent of the ownership, as it's their property. If there is a conflict between that respect and my safety, I won't go.

Beyond that, look at caselaw if you can find it.




Otherwise, if I don't notice the sign, I'm not aware that I'm doing anything illegal... I'm not going to do 3 laps around the building looking for one.

I may choose to ignore 30.06 signs that should not have been posted at all. I don't mean that are 10% too small or have slight imperfections to the letter of the law, but in cases where posting the sign is not legal. Such as posting a city owned property for a private event.

[G26ster]

Law does not say where or how many signs must be posted:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

[ATDM]

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

I meant this specific part of the law. It is interpreted as needing to be posted at each entrance, if the business truly wants to prohibit. Otherwise, if the said business has 50 entrances and they only post it at one of them, they fail to inform the public of their intent.

[WildBill]

I meant this specific part of the law. It is interpreted as needing to be posted at each entrance, ...

Not true.

[ATDM]

I meant this specific part of the law. It is interpreted as needing to be posted at each entrance, ...

Not true.

All right. So, they post at one of the 50 entrances in their building, which may be legal, but ineffective to inform the public, the vast majority of people entering the building will never see the sign.

[ATDM]

Then so be it, but it has never been interpreted in any case law (yet) to mean all entrances must be posted.

You may be right about that. My only reference is an article I read about it on a CHL website. They did not present any examples.

[cb1000rider]

All right. So, they post at one of the 50 entrances in their building, which may be legal, but ineffective to inform the public, the vast majority of people entering the building will never see the sign.

We're talking about the in-between. Does it matter if they post at 1 of 50 or 49 of 50? We don't know. There is no caselaw on it that I've found so it's going to be up to officer digression (immediately), then up to the DA, and then up to the Jury/Judge.

It doesn't have to be posted at every entrance. Even posted at every entrance, that doesn't necessarily make it conspicuous.

Basically, if you see it and know that it's valid or might be valid, you don't go... That's my rule. You'll find people here that do it differently than that.

[Vol Texan]

There is a reason for the specifications of the lettering as mentioned in the law - if that is met, then it's hard to miss a properly posted sign. So, imagine that you walk up to an entrance and see the sign. Then you spend the next 30 minutes circumnavigating the entire building, and you finally find one entrance that is not posted. Would that make it an invalid posting?

Of course not! If you've seen it, you've been notified. If you didn't, then you have not.

If, however, you walk in, do your business, and then notice the sign on the way out, then count your lucky stars, and consider yourself notified in the future.

[ATDM]

There is a reason for the specifications of the lettering as mentioned in the law - if that is met, then it's hard to miss a properly posted sign. So, imagine that you walk up to an entrance and see the sign. Then you spend the next 30 minutes circumnavigating the entire building, and you finally find one entrance that is not posted. Would that make it an invalid posting?

Of course not! If you've seen it, you've been notified. If you didn't, then you have not.

If, however, you walk in, do your business, and then notice the sign on the way out, then count your lucky stars, and consider yourself notified in the future.

The issue is not to find a way around adhering to the sign. The issue is a business with multiple entrances, and you UNKNOWINGLY go through the entrance without the sign (and exit the same way), whereas other entrances may have the sign. Are you obligated to make an effort (in a large hospital, for example) to be pro-active and search the other entrances to ensure they don't have the 30.06 sign on them? Or, are you clear to come in through the planned entrance without the sign?

[brhalltx]

Law does not say where or how many signs must be posted:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

I think the "and received notice" part is being overlooked. If the sign is posted where you can't see it, you didn't receive the notice. And, conversely, once you know that the sign is posted, you've received notice, even if you go in the 1 of 50 entrances that doesn't have a sign.

[ATDM]

I think the "and received notice" part is being overlooked. If the sign is posted where you can't see it, you didn't receive the notice. And, conversely, once you know that the sign is posted, you've received notice, even if you go in the 1 of 50 entrances that doesn't have a sign.

I completely agree with the statement. Of course, if you go through the "unposted" entrance with another entrance having the sign posted, you can end up arrested and will have to jump through the hoops, but, I believe, the charges will be dropped, since you did not "receive notice."

It's just a very unpleasant scenario. I wish there WAS a requirement to post it at all entrances to avoid hypothetical situations like this.

Thanks

[howdy]

I have had my CHL since 1997 and lived in the same house for the past 34 years. I know ALL the places in my area that are posted 30.06 and I just don't go there. We are lucky in Texas that very few places choose to post that stupid sign. They are smart enough to know that the sign only applies to law abiding people and not to criminals. There are exceptions, but most places that post have very visable signs. I find the 51% sign more problematic. My wife loves to go out to eat and we try all different types of restaurants all over Houston. I usually find the 51% sign up behind the bar in the restaurant AFTER we have been seated and ordered.

[ATDM]

I have had my CHL since 1997 and lived in the same house for the past 34 years. I know ALL the places in my area that are posted 30.06 and I just don't go there. We are lucky in Texas that very few places choose to post that stupid sign. They are smart enough to know that the sign only applies to law abiding people and not to criminals. There are exceptions, but most places that post have very visable signs. I find the 51% sign more problematic. My wife loves to go out to eat and we try all different types of restaurants all over Houston. I usually find the 51% sign up behind the bar in the restaurant AFTER we have been seated and ordered.

Thanks for the info. I have worked with guns for 30 years, but decided to get a CHL only a couple of months ago, so much of this is new to me. I am definitely NOT going to give my business to any place with a 30.06. I would also stay away from places with such an improperly posted 51% sign. In fact, I would leave and not get my order, had I found myself in the situation you described. You risked a potential arrest by being there. Granted, the charges wouldn't have held up, but do you really need the hassle? Places like this put you at such a risk.

As to the 30.06, it is very near-sighted for any business in Texas. With buying a good gun, ammunition, getting a CHL, holsters, etc. a new CHL holder spends $2,000 just to begin with. So, CHL holders would be good for any business, and as their number grows, savvy businessmen could see the impact. And, unless they are fanatical ideologues, they will take down the 30.06 signs.

That's my $0.02...