TexasCHLforum.com

I guess I must have missed some obscure detail regarding private premises rights/prerogatives complimented by the posting of 30.06 signeage - but , isn't the core of the 30.06 constructive notice requirement based upon the CONCEALMENT of a firearm on private premises ?

An openly DISPLAYED firearm carried beyond the 30.06 sign due either to intentional disregard, or ignorance- WHEN OBSERVED by the private premises custodial authority/management will result in either notice to immediately depart the premises, or a phone call requesting a law enforcement response to deal with the incident.

If the openly displayed firearm is not immediately observed by the custodial authority , reasonable grounds exist for a presumption of CONCEALMENT at some point between actual entry onto the premises and discovery. In either case - observation at the entrance, or subsequent discovery- notice will eventually be given to leave the premises.

So exactly what accounts for the great confusion over existing 30.06 signeage intended to address CONCEALMENT and display ?

Seems to me to be no more complicated than - does a posted "POSITIVELY NO ENTRY PASSED THIS POINT" sign apply to vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic ?

PATHFINDER wrote:I guess I must have missed some obscure detail regarding private premises rights/prerogatives complimented by the posting of 30.06 signeage - but , isn't the core of the 30.06 constructive notice requirement based upon the CONCEALMENT of a firearm on private premises ?

An openly DISPLAYED firearm carried beyond the 30.06 sign due either to intentional disregard, or ignorance- WHEN OBSERVED by the private premises custodial authority/management will result in either notice to immediately depart the premises, or a phone call requesting a law enforcement response to deal with the incident.

If the openly displayed firearm is not immediately observed by the custodial authority , reasonable grounds exist for a presumption of CONCEALMENT at some point between actual entry onto the premises and discovery. In either case - observation at the entrance, or subsequent discovery- notice will eventually be given to leave the premises.

So exactly what accounts for the great confusion over existing 30.06 signeage intended to address CONCEALMENT and display ?

Seems to me to be no more complicated than - does a posted "POSITIVELY NO ENTRY PASSED THIS POINT" sign apply to vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic ?

As I said elsewhere in this thread:

Receiving notice is the posting of a compliant 30.06 sign, regardless of the words on the sign. Clause 1 just says "carries a handgun" with no regard to that handgun being concealed. So a 30.06 effectively prohibits entry of an armed license holder even after the proposed legislation, even if the handgun is plainly visible.

You'll note the bit about "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" in clause one, too. TPC 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of that subchapter. Someone carrying under the authority of an LEO commission (eg an on or off duty police officer) or someone carrying under the authority of exclusion of applicability of TPC 46.02 (eg, someone who is traveling) is not subject to the notice of a 30.06-compliant sign.

Though I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of one of the board's lawyers on my amateur analysis of the above.

Edit: the above is incorrect. 30.06 is modified to apply to open and concealed carry both by law and signage.

billv wrote:

denwego wrote:And don't forget that Texas has size, wording, and posting-visibly requirements, and very few businesses post enforceable signs. I think most people would still carry concealed almost all the time and the status-quo we have now would go right on going into the ages.

So if I got this right, then the only sign that is valid for banning carrying a firearm into a business is a 30.06 sign? Any other sign, no matter how it's written, is not enforceable? I can be asked to leave the premises and if I don't then I'm committing trespass - I got that. My question on about non-30.06 signs.

Now last Friday I was in a private business that has a satellite US Post office that's run by contract. Since it's an official US post office but not on Federal land, I was wondering about carrying there. But I also noticed a gun buster sign as I was leaving. I laughed, it almost looked comical. Is that sign legal?

The only enforceable signs are the 30.06 & 51% signs.

Lots of good info here.

I am against open carry. I am for making sure that any accidental display of a otherwise properly concealed firearm absoulty is no offense of any kind.

magillapd wrote:I am against open carry. I am for making sure that any accidental display of a otherwise properly concealed firearm absoulty is no offense of any kind.

That's your right, option, and preference. You will be exercising your First and Second Amendment rights by NOT OPEN CARRYING. I will be exercising MINE by open carrying when I deem it advisable, and legal.

magillapd wrote:I am against open carry. I am for making sure that any accidental display of a otherwise properly concealed firearm absoulty is no offense of any kind.

That is exactly what HB 2756 will do. It completely removes the word concealed from the penal code. Failure to conceal will be history. I'll be able to conceal with a OWB without fear.

magillapd wrote:I am against open carry. I am for making sure that any accidental display of a otherwise properly concealed firearm absoulty is no offense of any kind.

It already ISN'T an offense of any kind. "Intentionally" is the opposite of accidentally. So you're just against open carry.

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

[quote="Pawpaw"
The only enforceable signs are the 30.06 & 51% signs.

Lots of good info here.[/quote]
Actually the 51% sign isn't really enforceable. It is against the law to carry in a 51% establishment, it is a legal defense in court if an establishment isn't posted with the proper sign. An establishment that is declared 51% by the TABC is required to post the proper sign. A bussiness that is not a 51% establishment might post the sign, but the sign would have no legal meaning.
Yeah, I know, I'm picking knits.

I guess I should clarify my position. I am against the Open carry for the same reason many brought up. I feel that it will result in many more 30.06 signs being posted. In large cities/urban areas, there are going to be many folks not comfortable with open carry and they will for sure out number us who have CHL's.

A shop owner will not risk alienating his non gun carrying customers for the sake of 1 or 2 carrrying ones.

I will not shop at a place that's posted. I don't want to have to change my spending habits on places that I enjoy going because someone chose to open carry at that place causing customers to "fear" the gun toting person and management posting the place.

Plus, I don't know how I feel about a person carrying a handgun into public places who has not been through the same requirments as a CHL has. That being said, If open carry were to pass, I want it to be only for CHL holders to have that option, not joe schmo who can't get a CHL.

I also belive that we pay way to much for a license and it needs to be no more then $50 for new and renewed.

My thoughts, My opinion, open to debate

steveincowtown wrote:Could any of the folks here who are of the mindset that "signs will be everywhere" if we get Open Carry point to where this has happened in any of the states which have OC or just recently got OC

Liberal Panic: "Blood will run in the streets"
Conservative Panic: "Sign will be everywhere!!"

IMHO, both irrational. Anyone have any input on the question above?

First, what states that do have licensed open carry and require enforceable signs to ban open carry on the premises. How about Utah?

Beiruty wrote:First, what states that do have licensed open carry and require enforceable signs to ban open carry on the premises. How about Utah?

I think Oregon might. But it might just be a trespass issue.

BTW, If one has a CHL in Oregon, they can carry in public schools. I just read the law.

Reading UtahConcealedCarry.com most OC may never had issues, others my got the looks and the stupid jokes like a friend sneaking from behind and trying to grab the OC gun, the OCer was not amused at all. Others were open carrying long rifles (unloaded, by law) in public and got the 911 call and treatment, then let go when verified to be unloaded.

Eventually the right to open carry has to be granted. Why not now? Just get er done!

redlin67 wrote:Eventually the right to open carry has to be honored. Why not now? Just get er done!

Fixed it for you.

Rights are not granted.



Anygunanywhere