TexasCHLforum.com

My hypothetical was you're NOT an employee just a customer.

ScottDLS wrote:My hypothetical was you're NOT an employee just a customer.

Sorry, I missed that. If you are a customer, then no the wording in an employee manual would not provide you with notice (barring some extremely weird hypothetical, of course).

ScottDLS wrote:

thetexan wrote:Yes, the owner must provide notice. Thankfully we have the definition of that means in the same section..."...a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice to the person by..." doing what?...by complying with the statutory requirements necessary to meet the definition of "a person receives notice [when]..., in the case of a sign, as follows...

(B) a sign posted on the property that: (note the lack of location required other than "on the property")
(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. (and in the case of 30.07) at each entrance to the property.

Also note that in the case of 30.06 a single 60 foot billboard in the parking lot of a mall, with 4 foot block letters in contrasting colors, in English and Spanish meets this requirement especially since there is no statutory requirement that the sign actually be seen by you to meet the definition of providing and you receiving notice.

In the case of 30.07 the entrance of a PROPERTY may be the entrances to the parking lot. The statute does not specify doors, or parking lot entrances. What IS specified is the term "PROPERTY".

tex

So what about the case of a written card or document printed in the employee manual. That meets the statutory definition of written notice, but was it PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner? Was a sign PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner if it was conspicuously places on one of 30 entrances commonly used by the public and the person did not enter through there?

I agree it is not necessary to prove you SAW the sign for a 30.06, nor that necessarily it be posted at all entrances (billboard), but it must be proven that the owner PROVIDED NOTICE TO YOU via one of the methods.

If the statutory definition of written notice were all that was required, then a 3x5 card in the corporate office in New York would meet the requirement, regardless of whether it was provided to you.

Under 411.213 an employer has the right to prohibit his employee from carrying under the authority of his LTC license. Further, there is no stipulation or required method for exercising that right including any requirement to use any 30.06 or 30.07 notification. An employer may simply place in the employment handbook "no guns allowed". He doesn't have to use any particular card or other document.

As to the use of the word "provide". In both 30.06 and 30.07 we find the phrase "...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. ..."

Let's explore this. There are three methods of notification, one oral and two written. By condensing the above sentence we can rewrite it to say "...a person receives notice if the owner provides notice...". The question becomes HOW does the owner PROVIDE notice because once that provision of notice has been made, notification, by the definition, HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

Before we get to the three methods we need to understand the meaning of the word "provide". The word has many definitions in legal dictionaries. These various definitions are similar across each source. For example:

as a verb (which is the case at hand)...

To make (something) readily available: to afford, extend, offer, deliver, furnish, give, hand, hand over, supply, transfer, turn over.

From another source:
as a verb-used to arrange for...

anticipate needs, appoint, care for, consulere, contract, direct, engage, get ready, look after, make allowance for, make preparations, make provision, make ready, manage, organize, pave the way, plan, prepare, providere, ready, serve, take into account, take measures, take steps

From the same source as a verb-used to supply...

to accommodate, accord, afford, allow, award, bestow, confer, contribute, donate, endow, equip, feed, fund, furnish, give, grant, impart, maintain, ornare, praebere, present, produce, purvey, replenish, stock, suppeditare, sustain

From Merriam's Dictionary...

Full Definition of provide

as an intransitive verb
1: to take precautionary measures <provide for the common defense — United States Constitution>
2: to make a proviso or stipulation <the Constitution…provides for an elected two-chamber legislature — Current Biography>
3: to make preparation to meet a need <provide for entertainment>; especially : to supply something for sustenance or support <provides for the poor>

as a transitive verb
1 archaic : to prepare in advance
2 a : to supply or make available (something wanted or needed) <provided new uniforms for the band>; also : afford <curtains provide privacy>
2 b : to make something available to <provide the children with free balloons>
3: to have as a condition : stipulate <the contract provides that certain deadlines will be met>

I bring attention to several similar contextually germane definitions. Let's plug those into to the text...

"A person receives notice when the owner provides notice" (original)
"A person receives notice when the owner furnishes notice"
"A person receives notice when the owner stipulates notice"
"A person receives notice when the owner supplies notice"
"A person receives notice when the owner gives notice"
"A person receives notice when the owner delivers notice"

The argument seems to be that to "provide notice" there must be some action on the part of the owner that is directly and interactive with the person being notified. That simply is not the case, either by definition, by statute, or by context. In law, according to the canons of statutory interpretation, when there is no officially declared definition of a word or phrase the word or phrase takes its common usage and meaning.

Now let's apply this to the three methods of notification. First oral.

"A person receives notice when the owner delivers, furnishes, supplies, gives, stipulates by, provides notice by oral communication." The term oral is so accepted in meaning that 30.06 and 30.07 give no definition of it. We all know what oral means.

Now a written card or document.

"A person receives notice when the owner delivers, furnishes, supplies, gives, stipulates by, provides notice by written notification in the form of a card or other document."

And finally by signage.

"A person receives notice when the owner delivers, furnishes, supplies, gives, stipulates by, provides notice by written notification in the form of a properly posted sign."

So, a 3x5 card in the corporate offices in New York has not met the definition of delivering, furnishing, supplying, giving or stipulating notice to a person 500 miles away. Reductio ad absurdum.

The requirement of 30.07 to "notify" is that a sign be posted at each entrance to a property. If that is the case one cannot help but pass through it. And if one passes through a non-posted entrance to a property the requirements of 30.07 notification have not been met statutorily. Will you still be arrested? Probably. Will you kick and scream and throw a fit that you haven't been notified? Probably. Will you be convicted at trial? Maybe. Will you appeal and get the OFFICIAL ruling? Who knows.

The statute says what it says in clear language. The context speaks for itself. How you deal with that is your concern.

tex

Because the sign is not posted were the public can see it, the public probably has not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees that have desk jobs near the lobby probably have not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees who work in the factory/warehouse area who walk in and out of the shipping/receiving door on a daily basis probably have been notified and cannot carry inside the building.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Employee manuals are frequently provided to all new employees, and a lot of companies require you to sign something acknowledging that you have read and understand the manual. In that case, I would think that notice clearly would have been given.

Agreed. I worked for a Fortune 1000 for almost 20 years. After 1997, HR included a definitive no-guns policy. All employees had to annually complete HR policy training and sign (eventually digitally sign) the document.

I took that as annual, formal notice, even if the wording didn't match section 30.06. I signed it; I knew about it.

ScottDLS wrote:I agree it is not necessary to prove you SAW the sign for a 30.06, nor that necessarily it be posted at all entrances (billboard), but it must be proven that the owner PROVIDED NOTICE TO YOU via one of the methods.

This would seem to be common sense, but is it actually spelled out somewhere?

Another example could be a movie theater. The thing being purchased is purchased before even going in the business in most occasions and a receipt obtained. What if the notice is written on the back of the receipt? How many folks read the back of a receipt from the movie theater? How many folks just stuff it in their wallet or pocket and proceed on inside to get popcorn or whatever and onward to their seat? The proprietor met the requirement of providing notice. They just didn't require you to actually read it or sign something stating you read and understood it like an employee manual.

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility.

At one of the US Law Shield seminars, I asked the lawyers this [currently hypothetical] question (which relates to OP's question): "Say I'm CC'ing while driving and get in a car accident. I'm injured, and unconscious or nearly so. I get taken to one of the local ER's. All the ones around me are valid posted 30.06. Have I committed a class A (back then, now a class C)?"

The answer was no, because I was not given effective notice. Due to my condition, I could not have seen the sign. This is from a lawyer, Michele Byington.

rssecurity wrote:

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility.

At one of the US Law Shield seminars, I asked the lawyers this [currently hypothetical] question (which relates to OP's question): "Say I'm CC'ing while driving and get in a car accident. I'm injured, and unconscious or nearly so. I get taken to one of the local ER's. All the ones around me are valid posted 30.06. Have I committed a class A (back then, now a class C)?"

The answer was no, because I was not given effective notice. Due to my condition, I could not have seen the sign. This is from a lawyer, Michele Byington.

I believe it is still a class A for posted hospitals. Just learned this. Doesn't answer your theoretical question.

My personal opinion is that it is time that the 30.06 requirements are changed to be the same as 30.07. You have to post at EVERY entrance. I would also include that it is required that the signs be posted on the OUTSIDE of the building next to the entrances or on the doors themselves. At a Mall, every single entrance that can lead into the Mall would have to be posted.

doncb wrote:My personal opinion is that it is time that the 30.06 requirements are changed to be the same as 30.07. You have to post at EVERY entrance. I would also include that it is required that the signs be posted on the OUTSIDE of the building next to the entrances or on the doors themselves. At a Mall, every single entrance that can lead into the Mall would have to be posted.

If we are talking about changes to the law, then my personal preference would be to get rid of the signage / notice references entirely. Trespassing is already against the law. If you ask me to leave your property I have to leave. If a property owner doesn't like anything about me, then they can ask me to leave (with limited exceptions for protected classes). The sign laws allow property owners to exclude a group of people solely because they have an irrational fear that interacting with those people will harm them.

If you see a gun and it scares you, ask me to leave. If you see that I am a man and that scares you, ask me to leave. If you see that I'm white, or muscular, or have tattoos, or young, or dressed like a slob, and that makes you uncomfortable, ask me to leave. But you shouldn't get to exclude me based on something that you can't even see, and which is not dangerous to you at all. For example, you don't get to put up a sign making it illegal for people with AIDS to visit your business, even if you are ignorant and have an irrational fear that being near an AIDS patient means certain death for you. So why do we allow people to criminalize a visit from someone who is CC'ing? In both cases, there is no realistic danger to others from a casual interaction, and in both cases, you most likely won't even know that the other person falls into the category that you fear so much.

But barring a complete removal of the sign laws, at least get rid of 30.07 signage requirements, since a store owner can obviously see if someone is OC'ing and can ask them to leave. And if we are going to keep 30.06 signs then require that the prosecution shows that you walked through an entrance that was clearly posted if they want to convict, either via surveillance tapes or by showing that every single entrance is clearly posted. Posting on sliding doors that slide behind displays, etc., ala HEB is not a clear posting, IMHO.

rssecurity wrote:

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility.

At one of the US Law Shield seminars, I asked the lawyers this [currently hypothetical] question (which relates to OP's question): "Say I'm CC'ing while driving and get in a car accident. I'm injured, and unconscious or nearly so. I get taken to one of the local ER's. All the ones around me are valid posted 30.06. Have I committed a class A (back then, now a class C)?"

The answer was no, because I was not given effective notice. Due to my condition, I could not have seen the sign. This is from a lawyer, Michele Byington.

Maybe, but probably more due to your condition and the fact that you were taken there. It's also probable that the EMT's and or police will have already taken possession of your weapon to return it to you later before even getting to the hospital.

rssecurity wrote:

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility.

At one of the US Law Shield seminars, I asked the lawyers this [currently hypothetical] question (which relates to OP's question): "Say I'm CC'ing while driving and get in a car accident. I'm injured, and unconscious or nearly so. I get taken to one of the local ER's. All the ones around me are valid posted 30.06. Have I committed a class A (back then, now a class C)?"

The answer was no, because I was not given effective notice. Due to my condition, I could not have seen the sign. This is from a lawyer, Michele Byington.

No surprise. The correct answer would be no, because you did not knowingly or voluntarily enter the property.

Does this pretty much summarize my situation?:

Because the sign is not posted were the public can see it, the public probably has not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees that have desk jobs near the lobby probably have not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees who work in the factory/warehouse area who walk in and out of the shipping/receiving door on a daily basis probably have been notified and cannot carry inside the building.

tbryanh wrote:Does this pretty much summarize my situation?:

Because the sign is not posted were the public can see it, the public probably has not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees that have desk jobs near the lobby probably have not been notified and can carry inside the building.

Employees who work in the factory/warehouse area who walk in and out of the shipping/receiving door on a daily basis probably have been notified and cannot carry inside the building.

This would be my argument, however others have pointed out that it is not required by law to post all entries 30.06, nor to prove that you SAW a sign in order to convict you. However, I think it's also pretty hard to argue that it was "conspicuously posted if you regularly entered through an unposted entrance and there was no other sign nearby. There's also the argument that the 30.06 is supposed to be posted in the area to be prohibited, so if the lobby is not posted, then it ought to be OK.

Probably open a can of worms here but:
I have read many similar posts as this and always wonder why after seeing a sign legal or not which says basically we don't want guns here why push the issue ? You have been notified. Being in LE both state and federal and now civilian I have seen what can happen, it is just not worth it, believe me you do not want to have to go through the system, win the battle loose the war. It can have a detrimental effect on the rest of your life, it is not worth it. Remember all the years we could not carry. A class A is not a good thing to have hanging on you.
My friend said back to me it was not a legal sign so I will carry, I asked do you really understand that if caught and charged the real problems you may face? Well I would be legal he said, and how much less $$$ in your account time spent, stress etc will you go through? I have seen 2 people caught carrying where posted, their actions being very polite and non confronting anyone are what saved them plus the business owner really not wanting to cause anyone a problem, they were lucky, if they had pushed the issue well it could have been very different. Both were concealed well almost and noticed. The store owner told them he did not want firearms in his business due to increased insurance costs he thought he would have, truth or not it don't matter and told the officers responding he would not sign a complaint and invited the 2 men back to his business anytime they wished to do so without a firearms if they chose to do so. The respectful attitude went along way.