TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:Since you brought it up...
I understand they can't prohibit having a firearm in a hotel room, as that is your temporary residence -- correct?
So, for hotels where entry is thru the lobby, how do you get the firearm into the room, if the lobby is posted?

I was taught that a handgun separated from you by virtue of being inside of a locked container is not "on or about" your person. So if your luggage locks, put the handgun inside and you can transit through a 30.06 zone. In theory, a locked briefcase would provide the same legal protection while dining in a 30.06 posted restaurant. Probably 51% too but IANAL and I'm definitely not your lawyer.

tacticool wrote:Look at it this way. If a gunbuster sign is not valid notice for criminal trespass, then 30.05(f) and 30.05(i) are unnecessary, and 30.06 is a bad thing.

So is a plain old gunbuster sign an appropriate notice of no trespassing (in regards to having a firearm for a non-CHLer)? That is, is the gunbuster sign legally assigned the meaning of "you are trespassing on this property if you have a handgun and do not have a CHL"? Also, not that it probably wouldn't be obvious if someone was carrying one, but does it also apply to long guns (which aren't covered by the CHL)? I'm trying to make sure I have a proper understanding of the validity and role of a gunbuster sign. I'm not talking about anything with words on it, just the symbol. What I am getting at is those signs either mean something under the law, or they don't.

(Edited to add one more sentence)

...before I had my CHL, I thought those signs meant that they didn't sell guns there...boy, am I dumb...concealed meant concealed then, too...

speedsix wrote:...before I had my CHL, I thought those signs meant that they didn't sell guns there...boy, am I dumb...concealed meant concealed then, too...

A substantially similar argument could be made today about schools, bars, and NFL football games.

tacticool wrote:Right. A gunbuster sign is enough to make a parking lot off limits for an unlicensed person under MPA. Also, trespassing is not a traffic violation, so they lose MPA protection completely.

Please cite the statutes here, and explain in detail.

...black ink, and in triplicate...

...OK, PLEASE...now you've got my curiosity up...never saw a gunbuster sign except on a front door...

apostate wrote:

speedsix wrote:...before I had my CHL, I thought those signs meant that they didn't sell guns there...boy, am I dumb...concealed meant concealed then, too...

A substantially similar argument could be made today about schools, bars, and NFL football games.

...nope...those are prohibited places to all...CHL or not...no signs needed...different from a store with a sign on the door...

Skiprr wrote:

tacticool wrote:Right. A gunbuster sign is enough to make a parking lot off limits for an unlicensed person under MPA. Also, trespassing is not a traffic violation, so they lose MPA protection completely.

Please cite the statutes here, and explain in detail.

Start with under 46.02 where it defines an offense as including not committing any other violation at the time. So, if you were committing a criminal trespass, you would also be guilty of unlawfully carrying. That is a class A and could really hurt someone. But I take it that your question was if it was really committing criminal trespass.

Now, under 30.05, criminal trespass means anything that provides notice that entry was not with the effective consent of the owner. The important point here is that the notice does not apply to a CHL, but an unlicensed person. And the notice can be on any type of property, as the law says property not premises (as in 46.035). There is no limit on what kind of sign there can be in 30.05. even purple paint applied in certain ways can be notice, as can just a fence designed to keep people out or animals in. So, a parking lot could be posted for criminal trespass. So, a gunbuster sign can be considered adequate notice to a non-CHL that his entry on property is without the effective consent of the owner. Other similar signs are common, like "For customers only" in parking lots (usually used to get towing companies profits, but could result in trespassing charges) and signs saying "No gang attire".

So, a non-chl carrying under the MPA would be committing criminal trespass under 30.05 if he drove past a gunbuster sign at the entrance to a parking lot. And then he would not be carrying under the MPA any longer since he is committing another violation at the same time. And the criminal trespass would also be upgraded because he had a deadly weapon with him at the time.

All of this makes me very grateful for the foresight of the people at TSRA (and others also who worked on it, if any) for the way 30.06 was written and passed. It is, in my opinion, a brilliant law for the benefit of CHLs.

...I'd have to see caselaw before I'd believe a judge thought that ignoring a gunbuster sign on a parking lot constituted trespass...never saw a lot marked that way, nor did I hear of it happening that way...it might on a building...but I haven't seen that in law, either...or heard of a case...I've been in Texas since '84 and never saw either come up...in the Dallas Metro area...it's a new thing for me to learn about if it's true...

speedsix wrote:

apostate wrote:

speedsix wrote:...

A substantially similar argument could be made today about schools, bars, and NFL football games.

...nope...those are prohibited places to all...CHL or not...no signs needed...different from a store with a sign on the door...

They're not so different than carrying without a CHL (or other authority)
and justifying it with a "concealed meant concealed then, too" quip.


Different section of the penal code, yes. Fundamentally different, no. IMHO YMMV IANAL OU812

...that's no quip...if you knew the number of people who now carry legally who've carried most of their lives in most places where it was only a misdemeanor and a few where it was a felony, you'd prolly get real upset...but it's history...and it's still going on...those places you added would be felonies...then and now...and quite different from what I was remarking on...penalties have increased quite a bit since the non-CHL days...now that we have a choice...

srothstein wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

tacticool wrote:Right. A gunbuster sign is enough to make a parking lot off limits for an unlicensed person under MPA. Also, trespassing is not a traffic violation, so they lose MPA protection completely.

Please cite the statutes here, and explain in detail.

Start with under 46.02 where it defines an offense as including not committing any other violation at the time. So, if you were committing a criminal trespass, you would also be guilty of unlawfully carrying. That is a class A and could really hurt someone. But I take it that your question was if it was really committing criminal trespass.

Now, under 30.05, criminal trespass means anything that provides notice that entry was not with the effective consent of the owner. The important point here is that the notice does not apply to a CHL, but an unlicensed person. And the notice can be on any type of property, as the law says property not premises (as in 46.035). There is no limit on what kind of sign there can be in 30.05. even purple paint applied in certain ways can be notice, as can just a fence designed to keep people out or animals in. So, a parking lot could be posted for criminal trespass. So, a gunbuster sign can be considered adequate notice to a non-CHL that his entry on property is without the effective consent of the owner. Other similar signs are common, like "For customers only" in parking lots (usually used to get towing companies profits, but could result in trespassing charges) and signs saying "No gang attire".

So, a non-chl carrying under the MPA would be committing criminal trespass under 30.05 if he drove past a gunbuster sign at the entrance to a parking lot. And then he would not be carrying under the MPA any longer since he is committing another violation at the same time. And the criminal trespass would also be upgraded because he had a deadly weapon with him at the time.

All of this makes me very grateful for the foresight of the people at TSRA (and others also who worked on it, if any) for the way 30.06 was written and passed. It is, in my opinion, a brilliant law for the benefit of CHLs.

Thank you, that is the sort of thing I was looking for. Obviously, if an individual has a CHL as do most of us on here, it is a moot point. But, I'm known to some of my friends as a "gun guy", and the topic of carrying has come up before (very few know that I have a CHL, however...concealed means concealed, right?). I want to give them the best possible information and be able to explain it without having to keep a law library in my head (I'm a mechanic, not a lawyer!). That is why I ask the kinds of questions I do, it isn't ONLY to stir the pot, I promise.

...your question and the answers given opened up a whole new field of study for me...and at MY age, I NEED some stimulation...

bronco78 wrote:You friend is mistaken; his position is likely based on and older version of a law that allowed you to "travel" with a loaded weapon.

If so then his friend has it backwards. The old wives tale was traveling required you to cross a county line, so you weren't traveling if you were in the same county.

hpcatx wrote:First, the MPA as I understand it does not help with Federal gun free zones, such as driving through school zones. The CHL, however, does provide a defense against prosecution for carrying there. (Note: Not in school facilities, just the 1000 ft surrounding.) I could be incorrect about this and other forum members should feel free to correct me.

Second, the 30.06 signage needs to be prominently placed; it does not need to be on every entrance, as stated, to be enforceable.

As far as I am concerned the locals can't enforce immigration laws then they can't enforce federal gun laws. Feds want it both ways and that is nuts. CHL makes it irrelevant to me though.