Recent changes to sign requirements and other

[KBCraig]

1) Every door must be posted on the door. Not beside it, on the door itself. That means fire exits, loading dock doors, etc, too. If there are double doors, both must be posted.

This overlooks the reality of door designs. What about sliding doors, which are often open --thus hidden-- during busy times?

The current standard of "conspicuous to the public" is sufficient.

Instead of trying to tinker with 30.06 to make it "better" by adding more verbiage to the statute, we should eliminate the underlying problem: criminal trespass while armed is a Class A misdemeanor (enhanced from Class C) and will cost you your CHL for a time. Remove the enhanced penalty, make it like any other trespass issue, and no one will need to worry about it. If someone accidentally carries past a hidden sign and if they are caught and refuse to leave when asked in the presence of a peace officer, only then would they be subject to a charge of trespass. A Class C fine is typically what, $250?

[shootthesheet]

The law is written as is for the protection of those that choose to post as well as those that choose to get a CHL. It is not an either/or but an absolute in my opinion. Follow the law exactly according to the law or it is not a legally binding posting.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

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.

One point I will agree with is that if a CHL holder is witnessed going to one door and then another in a fishing expedition to find one that isn't posted then it is possible that CHL holder did not obey the law IF CAUGHT. I would say follow the law. That does not mean we are required to go to that entrance every time. And if we do not go into that entrance and the one we enter is not posted then the sign was not "clearly visible" and could have been removed since the last time we entered. It is not up to us to know but the business to post according to the law. That is opinion only.

[tarkus]

In a case like that mall it might make it to a jury. If it does, none of our opinions matter unless we're on the jury.

[seamusTX]

Sure, if the unfortuate CHL holder can afford to front something like $10,000 in legal fees (which the wife will be overjoyed about, I'm sure).

The prosecution will have to prove only three facts:

• The premises were posted with a sign that met the requirements of PC 30.06.
• The defendent entered the premises.
• The defendant had a handgun on or about his person at the time.

As I have pointed out every time this topic comes up, the law does not require the element of acting "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly."

- Jim

[HankB]

The law has been in place for quite a number of years now - if this is an issue, there must be some case law established by now.

If ANYONE can cite a person being charged, arrested, or harassed for an alleged PC30.06 violation for entering a venue through a regular public entrance that did NOT have a valid sign, based on the theory that a sign ELSEWHERE was binding, provide the cite.

Please.

[seamusTX]

I don't know of any case law.

About a dozen people a year are convicted of violating 30.06. I have to assume that all of them plead guilty or are found guilty at bench trials. Few people can afford to fight such a charge.

I should add, that if someone wants to test this law, knowing the risk and the cost, I will be grateful for the clarification. I just want people to understand the risk (7 years of ineligibility for a CHL) and the cost.

- Jim

[shootthesheet]

Jim,

That is a good point. People should know it is possible. I don't think it would go so far as a trial except for a hostile area but, that doesn't mean it wouldn't. My point, was that if it is necessary to enter a building that a CHL holder thinks may be posted, but has no current notice, it may be worth the risk. That is especially true if that CHL holder is only found out when they use their weapon to stop a criminal from murdering innocent people. And that should be the only way anyone would ever know that CHL holder has the weapon. I would personally rather risk spending money on defense than be dead. Thus for me, the decision has been made. If I could avoid entering the incorrectly posted place I would. But, if I had to for whatever reason....

[HankB]

There's an old saying that a DA can indict a ham sandwich, so I suppose it's theoretically possible that a prosecutor lacking integrity can trump up charges for the sole purpose of costing you legal defense dollars - no doubt this sort of thing has happened, and will happen . . . and not just on CHL-related matters.

Still, though IANAL, I don't see a successful prosecution against someone for a 30.06 violation if they enter a venue through a door which is NOT posted. The section that requires the sign is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public for notice to be given clearly would not be adhered to if the sign is not visible at a normal public entrance; the normal usage of "conspicuous" and "clearly visible" would hold, and neither would be present if the sign were out of sight with hundreds of yards of distance, masonry, trees, brickwork, etc., between it and the person it is supposed to be notifying. That the sign may be visible to someone else who's entering someplace else has no relevance to it's invisibility from the entrance you are using.

It's all about providing notice; THEY have to provide it by putting a sign up in front of you; YOU don't have to go looking for it elsewhere.

As for " . . . if someone wants to test this law, knowing the risk and the cost . . . "

Well, wouldn't deliberately testing this law basically require that someone deliberately break concealment . . . which is another violation in and of itself?

[seamusTX]

Being found out does not necessarily mean that the CHL holder deliberately breaks concealment. Accidents happen, though we all try to avoid them and are successful most of the time. One of the early arrests of a CHL holder occured when the man's weapon was briefly exposed as he got out of a vehicle: http://groups.google.com/group/tx.guns/ ... 2c8d9040c/

It's also possible that you could be falsely suspected of shoplifting, perhaps because of one of those failure-prone RIFD detectors, and be searched by store employees or the police. If the managment of a store or mall has taken the effort to post 30.06 signs, they probably also have a policy of calling the police if they detect a violation.

- Jim