30.06 Signage & Multiple Entrances

[-Slamfire-]

If only one entrance has proper 30.06 signage, but the other entrances do not, is illegal to then carry?

A more specific example: You park in the building's underground parking garage, go up several floors through the garage elevators and then entered the building on the 5th floor. There was no 30.06 signage through out your route of entering the building. However, the main entrance on the ground floor does have 30.06 signage (which you never saw). Is it illegal to carry here?

Thanks all.

[boomerang]

Do you know about the sign?

[Catfight]

If you know that the building has a valid 30.06 sign and you carry there, you are in violation. Even if they dont have a valid sign and its apparent that the signage they have indicates they do not want people with guns on property, common sense should be your guide. Lock it in your car and go about your business.

[bdickens]

Common sense tells me that the law is very specific about what constitutes "proper notice" and if the sign doesn't meet the letter of the law it is not enforceable and I will therefore carry right past it - probably with a smirk on my face.

[dicion]

Even if they dont have a valid sign and its apparent that the signage they have indicates they do not want people with guns on property, common sense should be your guide.

Yes.. common sense that if they Really didn't want the guns there, they'd take the 10 seconds to research a PROPER sign and post it properly.

Sorry, invalid signs don't exist to me. I'd walk right past em.

[Originalist]

Seeing and knowing are two different things, if it was a valid sign and you knew it was there, Yes you are in violation of the law! If you never saw the sign and didnt know it was there. No you are not in violation.

Non compliant signs are just that - non compliant. They felt compelled to not be in compliance with the law; so shall I.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I agree with the above. the law is specific and says proper sinage at EVERY entrance.

[Liberty]

I agree with the above. the law is specific and says proper sinage at EVERY entrance.

Ermm.. not really
The specifically says;
"is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

It doesn't exactlly specify at each entrance.

[Keith B]

I agree with the above. the law is specific and says proper sinage at EVERY entrance.

Actuaslly, it doesn't. The law states:

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.

It doesn't state is has to be on every entrance, just 'displayed in a conspicuous manner visible to the public.' Leaves it pretty gray.

[-Slamfire-]

Thanks for all the great replies, it was more of a gray area then I thought.

I guess it would come down to a jury to decide if not all entrances having 30.06 signage "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". I could see that going either way.

[Originalist]

Keith,

True your statement is, however noone can expect you to know that one entrance that is properly posted if the rest are not. humans are creatures of habit and I know I consistently park in the same places, use the same entrances, etc. Now, that doesn't mean you couldn't get charged but I do not think it would go very far.

[03Lightningrocks]

That sounds like the Hilton in downtown Austin. I carried there for three days not knowing it was posted. Exact same scenario you just ask about. I came in through the parking garage and had no idea of the posting.

[WildBill]

Keith,

True your statement is, however noone can expect you to know that one entrance that is properly posted if the rest are not. humans are creatures of habit and I know I consistently park in the same places, use the same entrances, etc. Now, that doesn't mean you couldn't get charged but I do not think it would go very far.

The majority of the people who ask this question already know that some entrances are posted, while others are not. The point is that if you did see the sign on any entrance then you know it is legally posted. Therefore, you can not, in all honesty, pretend that it is not.

That sounds like the Hilton in downtown Austin. I carried there for three days not knowing it was posted. Exact same scenario you just ask about. I came in through the parking garage and had no idea of the posting.

Since you did not know it was legally posted, that is a completely different scenario.

I guess it would come down to a jury to decide if not all entrances having 30.06 signage "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public".

Or to the police, DA, judge or jury.

[Originalist]

precisely what I was saying

[jamullinstx]

Do I recall that the most recent session of the legislature modified the requirement to specify that 30.06 signs must be at each entrance? Or am I confusing that with the change in the posting requirements for 51% signs? In either case, if this change is true, it won't take effect until September, IIRC.