Just finished my Renewal class ...

[seamusTX]

How is it that most hospitals are government owned? With the exception of County hospitals I thought most were privately owed by large groups like HCA (Hospital Corporation of America) or the Baylor or Presbyterian groups.

I don't think "most" hospitals are government-owned, but many are run by the University of Texas. I know for a fact that the UTMB police in Galveston consider all their buildings off-limits. I'll bet all the UT hospitals are of the same opinion.

Veterans Affairs hospitals are federal facilities and governed by federal law.

- Jim

[C-dub]

They probably are.

There are a few hospitals in the DFW area that are part of the UT system, but most of the one’s close to me that I would end up at are privately owned and posted 30.06. I’ve only come across one that isn’t so far and it isn’t really a hospital. Trinity West Urgent Care in Lewisville is a satellite facility of Trinity Hospital in Carrollton, which is posted, but Trinity West is not posted. It has been a few months since I’ve been there, but as far as I remember they only have letters on a window that say it illegal to possess a firearm on the premises. Obviously, left over from when it did not have to be posted.

[seamusTX]

I still haven't seen a completely valid 30.06 sign anywhere. The only private facilities that I have been in lately are in Galveston County and owned by HCA. They have a legally meaningless sign that some bureaucrat made up.

- Jim

[srothstein]

So does that mean and government owned hospitals and nursing homes can get around the invalid posting of the 30.06, knowing that the 30.06 is not valid, but if they catch you, then because they warned you, they can prosecute you under a totally different statute (46.035) than what you were warned with (30.06)?

No, we are protected from the improper posting because the law still reads that you must be warned as specified under 30.06. So, the sign must meet all of those specifications. It is just the way the law works that regardless of the posting, you could be charged under a 46.035.

The really bad part is that if it is not government property (say a properly posted privately owned nursing home), you can be charged with both sections of the law. It is unlawfully carrying under 46.035 AND criminal trespass under 30.06. It would be rare to see these type of stacked charges, but I could have seen it happening with some of the more prominent former D.A.'s that were around.

[WildBill]

It is unlawfully carrying under 46.035 AND criminal trespass under 30.06. It would be rare to see these type of stacked charges, but I could have seen it happening with some of the more prominent former D.A.'s that were around.

Why do say it would be rare? D.A.s do it all the time with other criminal charges.

[seamusTX]

I'm not Steve, but I agree with him.

Nearly all misdemeanors are settled with plea bargains. Even though DWI is a class B misdemeanor and carrying while intoxicated is a class A, DWI carries the more severe penalties. In addition to fines and mandatory jail time, there's loss of driver license, increased insurance, job restrictions, public humiliation, and loss of CHL in this case.

The DA wouldn't achieve anything more by prosecuting the weapon charge.

- Jim

[WildBill]

I'm not Steve, but I agree with him.

Nearly all misdemeanors are settled with plea bargains. Even though DWI is a class B misdemeanor and carrying while intoxicated is a class A, DWI carries the more severe penalties. In addition to fines and mandatory jail time, there's loss of driver license, increased insurance, job restrictions, public humiliation, and loss of CHL in this case.

The DA wouldn't achieve anything more by prosecuting the weapon charge.

- Jim

That is the exact reason that they would charge someone with multiple crimes. Charge him with both crimes and let him plea bargain to the lesser weapons charge. The DA gets his conviction without a trial and looks good because of his conviction rate.

[seamusTX]

Charge him with both crimes and let him plea bargain to the lesser weapons charge.

I'm betting that the prosecutor would go for the DWI in exchange for dropping the weapon charge. Almost no one goes to trial for misdemeanor DWI, because it is costly and most defendants are found guilty.

- Jim

[WildBill]

Charge him with both crimes and let him plea bargain to the lesser weapons charge.

I'm betting that the prosecutor would go for the DWI in exchange for dropping the weapon charge. Almost no one goes to trial for misdemeanor DWI, because it is costly and most defendants are found guilty.

- Jim

You are probably right.

[seamusTX]

Well, that's no fun.

I had gone looking to see how accurate my statement about the likelihood of conviction was. I found this article about a county in California that has a conviction rate of 99.2 percent. The statewide average is 79.4.
http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/1735604.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't find recent, uniform data for Texas. It's important to use recent information, because laws, police procedures, technology, and attitudes have changed. At one time, evaluation of intoxication was subjective. Now, with dash cams and Intoxilizers, its much harder to fight a DWI charge.

DWI is almost unique among crimes, because the defendant either has to give evidence against himself, or lose his license statutorily. Also, prosecutors and judges give great credence to police testimony and test results (even though some districts have been found to have inaccurate machinery) and ignore the presumption of innocence.

- Jim

[barres]

So does that mean and government owned hospitals and nursing homes can get around the invalid posting of the 30.06, knowing that the 30.06 is not valid, but if they catch you, then because they warned you, they can prosecute you under a totally different statute (46.035) than what you were warned with (30.06)?

No, we are protected from the improper posting because the law still reads that you must be warned as specified under 30.06. So, the sign must meet all of those specifications. It is just the way the law works that regardless of the posting, you could be charged under a 46.035.

The really bad part is that if it is not government property (say a properly posted privately owned nursing home), you can be charged with both sections of the law. It is unlawfully carrying under 46.035 AND criminal trespass under 30.06. It would be rare to see these type of stacked charges, but I could have seen it happening with some of the more prominent former D.A.'s that were around.

So you're saying we are guilty of violating PC46.035 when we enter an posted, government-owned hospital, even though PC46.035(i) sates, "Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06," even though PC30.06 is excepted by clause (e), so no effective notice can be given there? I understand the double trouble we could be in by entering a posted hospital.

[boomerang]

even though PC30.06 is excepted by clause (e), so no effective notice can be given there?

Are you sure?

(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.

[barres]

even though PC30.06 is excepted by clause (e), so no effective notice can be given there?

Are you sure?

(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.

Okay so it's one of those mobius strips built into the law. It's not off-limits (ie. not a prohibited place), unless effective 30.06 notice is given, and 30.06 is excepted unless it is a prohibited place. I would say that since it can only be a prohibited place once effective 30.06 notice is given, that it is not a prohibited place and 30.06 is excepted. But hey, IANAL, so what do I know? That's why I'm hoping SRothstein or Chas will comment and clarify this. They're very well-informed of the law and used to its application by virtue of their respective occupations.

ETA: Your highlighted section refers to things like 46.035(b)(1), 51% locations, (b)(2) sporting events, and (b)(3) correctional facilities which might be on government-owned property. Places not excluded by 46.035(i), in other words. IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.

[srothstein]

So you're saying we are guilty of violating PC46.035 when we enter an posted, government-owned hospital, even though PC46.035(i) sates, "Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06," even though PC30.06 is excepted by clause (e), so no effective notice can be given there? I understand the double trouble we could be in by entering a posted hospital.

What you are missing is that effective notice is specifically defined in section 30.06. Remember section (b) defines notice as meaning oral or the specific sign.

So, the prohibited place is prohibited if you see the sign or are orally informed that no guns are allowed.

And, since I missed the clause posted about not effective on government property unless it is prohibited, you would still be able to be charged with both offenses at once.

[Abraham]

So, the upshot before carrying in hospitals/nursing homes is to do what in order to know it's legal to carry there?

(after all the crystal ball gazing - I'm no longer certain what's the best course of action)