oral notice

[Morgan]

Not according to the law. It might void the contract, but it doesn't count as written notice by the law. Look it up.

[barres]

WRITTEN CONTRACT you SIGN says, "No firearms are allowed on the premises. By signing this document you agree to not bring firearms into the facility."

You agreed to it by signing it. Forget about 30.06, this is a contract.

It is a contract dealing with your membership and your duties to pay fees, etc. It does not provide notice to the point of causing you to be breaking the law. Just like a non-30.06-compliant policy at work can cost you your job but not get you prosecuted, violating the contract can cost you financially and cause you to lose you membership, but you cannot be prosecuted for trespass by a CHL holder. In theory (who wants to be the test case? Anyone?).

[Morgan]

Of course very few of us want to be the test case. But my question was ONLY about violation of 30.05 and 30.06 type laws. I mean, in principal you could say the same thing about a ghost buster sign... yeah, sure it's not legal notice, but you can tell the intent. But it's not god enough. For that same reason, I'm 99.999% sure you wouldn't be a trespass test case...the law is as clear about written notice as it is about sign posting. That's ALL I'm saying. I'm not arguing the contract, your membership, or other bull

[aardwolf]

You agreed to it by signing it. Forget about 30.06, this is a contract.

IANAL but I think they can sue you but can't prosecute you for contract violations.

[Skiprr]

What if you're deaf? Hard-of-hearing? Had your iPod turned up? Weren't listening? Were daydreaming? Had your bluetooth in and were engrossed in conversation? Part of delivering a message is confirming that it was received, or he could just mutter all sorts of things under his breath.

Serious comment: Ya know, I wonder if the issue of the hard-of-hearing has ever come up in this context? Would it be incumbent upon the property owner to write out the precise 30.06 wording on a piece of paper if he learned a patron was armed and the owner didn't want him to be?

Not serious comment: Okay, the "just mutter all sorts of things under his breath" bit just caused me to flash to my favorite TV commercial: Ozzy Osbourne for Samsung Mobile. Ozzy does an impeccable job of exaggerating his already-mumbled speech, and he can't make himself understood even by his therapist unless he pulls out his cell phone and texts the person he's trying to talk to. I gotta admit, I crack up every time I see it.

[Nintao]

While not Oral Notice... here is my work's policy:

The company prohibits all persons who enter company property from carrying a firearm of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the firearm. Legal, chemical dispensing devises, such as pepper spray that are sold commercially for personal protection are not prohibited by this policy.

This policy applies to all company employees, contract and temporary employees, and contractors on company property, regardless of whether they are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. An exception to this policy may be police officers or other persons who have been given consent by the company to carry a firearm on company property.

It then mentions some extra FL rules.
----------------
Gotta love corporate mentality!

So LEO according to this policy that they do not see cannot carry lol. Who writes this stuff!

[Morgan]

If I understand it correctly... your company policy, written thusly, cannot be used to prosecute you should you choose to ignore it, as it's not 30.06 compliant for trespass, but it can be used as grounds for dismissal, as you're breaking policy.

Is that right?

I mean, it's not like they need ANY justification to fire you in the state of TX, being a "right to work" state.

[Keith B]

If I understand it correctly... your company policy, written thusly, cannot be used to prosecute you should you choose to ignore it, as it's not 30.06 compliant for trespass, but it can be used as grounds for dismissal, as you're breaking policy.

Is that right?

I mean, it's not like they need ANY justification to fire you in the state of TX, being a "right to work" state.

IIRC and IANAL, written policy is valid if it is written as 30.06 wording. If not, then not legal to prosecute you. Verbal notice OF ANY KIND is considered valid notification for prosecution. As you stated, they can fire you for anything they want to.