TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

der Teufel wrote: OR — is Keith B saying that it's normally okay to carry in governmental meetings UNLESS they're posted 30.06? Can they do that?

This, I think, but I don't have the best record lately. They can do it if they want.

Yes, you can carry at a government meeting unless they post a 30.06. One exception is a school board or other government meeting in a school building.

asbandr wrote:When I see a 30.06 sign that looks legit, I don't search out ways to try and discredit it. If something happened and you got charged with carrying in a restricted place, wouldn't it be up to a judge whether you were justified or not? Location of the sign hidden behind a bush? Sure, that's understandable. Lettering 7/8"? That's a tad overkill. But I understand some things raising a question mark and asking. I have [Pre-paid legal service], so if I have a question about a grey area, I can just ask a lawyer directly.

If the 30.06 sign is not exactly correct the judge to rule if you did or did not ‘receive effective notice ’

If you could read it well enough to know it was a 30.06 sign and measure the letters, I think it'd be hard to convince a judge or jury that you weren't given effective notice.

asbandr wrote:If you could read it well enough to know it was a 30.06 sign and measure the letters, I think it'd be hard to convince a judge or jury that you weren't given effective notice.

Should the cops pull you over and give you a ticket for driving 52 mph when the sign says 55?

52. 55. Close enough!

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

gringo pistolero wrote:

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

Actually 30.05 makes it a DEFENSE TO PRO SECTION if the reason was carrying a handgun under a CHL

jbarn wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

Actually 30.05 makes it a DEFENSE TO PRO SECTION if the reason was carrying a handgun under a CHL

pro section? what is pro section??? ok yes it is a defense to prosecution but if you leave then you cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass at all. so if they are posting 30.06 and its incorrect or not valid you cannot be charged under that as an automatic crime and 30.05 has the defense to, so it takes verbal not written and no automatic crime, so GP's surmise that it could be valid under 30.05 is not a logical assumption. what I mean by verbal and not written is that written for CHL requires 30.06 and it MUST be as defined by the statute verbal is good no matter what section is applied

Pro section is my STUPID smart phone. Lol

JP171 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

Actually 30.05 makes it a DEFENSE TO PRO SECTION if the reason was carrying a handgun under a CHL

pro section? what is pro section??? ok yes it is a defense to prosecution but if you leave then you cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass at all. so if they are posting 30.06 and its incorrect or not valid you cannot be charged under that as an automatic crime and 30.05 has the defense to, so it takes verbal not written and no automatic crime, so GP's surmise that it could be valid under 30.05 is not a logical assumption. what I mean by verbal and not written is that written for CHL requires 30.06 and it MUST be as defined by the statute verbal is good no matter what section is applied

One can be prosecuted under 30.05 without any verbal notice. Signs work just fine for 30.05. And "if you leave" you can still be prosecuted for criminal trespass, depending on the circumstance.



A defense to prosecution allows one to be arrested and prosecuted.

jbarn wrote:

JP171 wrote:

jbarn wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:

TxFig wrote:A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Not only does it look like a valid 30.06 sign, but the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

I sure wouldn't want to be the test case.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

Actually 30.05 makes it a DEFENSE TO PRO SECTION if the reason was carrying a handgun under a CHL

pro section? what is pro section??? ok yes it is a defense to prosecution but if you leave then you cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass at all. so if they are posting 30.06 and its incorrect or not valid you cannot be charged under that as an automatic crime and 30.05 has the defense to, so it takes verbal not written and no automatic crime, so GP's surmise that it could be valid under 30.05 is not a logical assumption. what I mean by verbal and not written is that written for CHL requires 30.06 and it MUST be as defined by the statute verbal is good no matter what section is applied

One can be prosecuted under 30.05 without any verbal notice. Signs work just fine for 30.05. And "if you leave" you can still be prosecuted for criminal trespass, depending on the circumstance.



A defense to prosecution allows one to be arrested and prosecuted.

they cannot be charged with criminal trespass by a license holder under 30.05 as soon as the say something about chl it MUST comply with 30.06. next show me one cop besides yourself as you might try as being the protagonist for improper application of the statute when does a LEO IN FACT arrest any one under 30.05 because the property owner said they had been warned. NEVER in all the time I have called the LEO to do just that, had my yard dug up by a person stealing my landscaping, I got told oh that's a civil thing and the LEO hauled it on outta there. Also for 30.05 purple paint works just fine too but NOT for a concealed handgun so the arrest cannot be on the basis of a handgun. if you are told to leave a verbal notice in whatever manner it is presented complies with both

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.

Ameer wrote:

JP171 wrote:

gringo pistolero wrote:the big print looks like it could be valid 30.05 notice for MPA.

not even close as 30.05 states clearly that 30.05 cannot be used in the case of weapons so nope doesn't work

That's incorrect. A property owner can use 30.05 notice to prohibit weapons carried under the authority of the Motorist Protection Act and since there's a deadly weapon, it's a Class A misdemeanor.

The parking lot law is for employees. It doesn't protect patients at the hospital, family and friends who visit, etc.

Edit: unless they have a CHL...then it's a DEFENSE under 30.05.

nightmare wrote:

asbandr wrote:If you could read it well enough to know it was a 30.06 sign and measure the letters, I think it'd be hard to convince a judge or jury that you weren't given effective notice.

Should the cops pull you over and give you a ticket for driving 52 mph when the sign says 55?

52. 55. Close enough!

Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

jimlongley wrote: Exactly what I said to the DPS spokesperson who told me that DPS considers the effort to post 30.06 to be an indication of intent, and as far as they were concerned 3/4 inch letters were close enough. I asked her if, based on that logic, 49 was close enough to 40, and she hung up on me.

I agree with DPS - the intent of the specificity is to make the sign legible and readable. Go to court and say that you could read it, but knew that the letters were under the correct size at your own risk... It could go either way.