TexasCHLforum.com

I know this question has been beaten to death in one form or another. Here's the deal. A buddy of mine has a business that sits on a large parcel of land. The county bought a chunk of the land to use for emergency purposes, but leased it back to my buddy for his own use. They built a structure on the property, but he has use of it, as well.

Recently, the county posted an apparently compliant 30.06 sign on the structure. I say the sign is not enforceable, under the statute. Any opinions?

DoubleActionCHL wrote:I know this question has been beaten to death in one form or another. Here's the deal. A buddy of mine has a business that sits on a large parcel of land. The county bought a chunk of the land to use for emergency purposes, but leased it back to my buddy for his own use. They built a structure on the property, but he has use of it, as well.

Recently, the county posted an apparently compliant 30.06 sign on the structure. I say the sign is not enforceable, under the statute. Any opinions?

IMO it is government owned, so not allowed unless restricted by statute otherwise. Also, no gray area as your buddy didn't post it as the lessee/lessor. However, I am not a lawyer.

My opinion is that a governmental agency that is subject to Texas law, they cannot post a 30.06 sign.

I appreciate your responses, but I was really looking for something a bit more concrete.

DoubleActionCHL wrote:I appreciate your responses, but I was really looking for something a bit more concrete.

You asked for opinions, so I'll give you mine.

- It's not illegal for the county to post a 30.06 sign on their building, but it is misleading. That's because a CHL holder can't be prosecuted under 30.06 for carrying on government owned property. It's in the definition of the statute.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN,
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
...
...
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

I've edited the irrelevant paragraphs for brevity, but you can read the whole statute if you want. The key phrase "exception to the application of this section". So CHL holder cannot be prosecuted under 30.06. Someone can't be prosecuted under 30.05 either, if the only reason for them being denied access to the property was that they were carrying a handgun. In other words if it's OK for you to be there without a gun, then it's OK to be there with a gun.

PC §30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS,
(a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
...
...
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

So is this more informative?

Thanks. I'm very familiar with the statute. I'm asking for information related to the real-world application of Section 30.06 as it might apply to situations such as this. For instance, the land on which Hobby Center for the Performing Arts sits is owned by the city of Houston, however, they post 30.06 signage. Is anyone aware of arrests and subsequent court rulings in these cases?

The general consensus is the sign is not enforceable, and I agree. However, we can all agree and still get arrested, and find ourselves facing a criminal trial. Will we win? Probably. However, I'd like to know if a case like this has been fought in the past, and the outcome.

The real-world application is that a government agency is not allowed to enforce 30.06 on government property. If they do, and you ignore it and get caught, so what? How can you face a criminal trial for something that is not a crime?

bdickens wrote:The real-world application is that a government agency is not allowed to enforce 30.06 on government property. If they do, and you ignore it and get caught, so what? How can you face a criminal trial for something that is not a crime?

First off, that's not entirely true. TPC Section 46.035 provides an exception for postings of 30.06 on government property in certain instances.

So, an officer has never arrested someone for an offense for which he was unclear on the law, and a prosecutor has never pursued a conviction by stretching the intent or interpretation of a statute?

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

bdickens wrote:The real-world application is that a government agency is not allowed to enforce 30.06 on government property. If they do, and you ignore it and get caught, so what? How can you face a criminal trial for something that is not a crime?

First off, that's not entirely true. TPC Section 46.035 provides an exception for postings of 30.06 on government property in certain instances.

So, an officer has never arrested someone for an offense for which he was unclear on the law, and a prosecutor has never pursued a conviction by stretching the intent or interpretation of a statute?

Are you refering to TPC 46.035(i) ?

DoubleActionCHL wrote:Thanks. I'm very familiar with the statute.

The general consensus is the sign is not enforceable, and I agree. However, we can all agree and still get arrested, and find ourselves facing a criminal trial. Will we win?

I know one way to find out .

Pick up the phone and call DPS and/or The Attorney General's Office if they can't give you the straight answer then there needs to be a court decision. You up to being the test case?

DoubleActionCHL wrote:

bdickens wrote:The real-world application is that a government agency is not allowed to enforce 30.06 on government property. If they do, and you ignore it and get caught, so what? How can you face a criminal trial for something that is not a crime?

First off, that's not entirely true. TPC Section 46.035 provides an exception for postings of 30.06 on government property in certain instances.

So, an officer has never arrested someone for an offense for which he was unclear on the law, and a prosecutor has never pursued a conviction by stretching the intent or interpretation of a statute?

Yeah, the one exception is that they can post a meeting of a government body. The meeting, not the meeting place.

bdickens wrote:Yeah, the one exception is that they can post a meeting of a government body. The meeting, not the meeting place.

Yes, 46.035(i), and there are two exceptions (that is, until we have government churches and amusement parks). Meetings of governmental entities and hospitals. Meetings are held at a "place," so for the purposes of this statute, the "place" is off limits if effective notice is given under Section 30.06 for the duration of the meeting. The VA hospital would be another example.

MoJo wrote:Pick up the phone and call DPS and/or The Attorney General's Office if they can't give you the straight answer then there needs to be a court decision. You up to being the test case?

DPS (Ms. O'Shaw) won't give a ruling on anything, and no, I haven't tried the AG's office. And yes, you've simply massaged my question. We all know what the statute appears to say in this regard. I specifically asked if anyone was aware of any court decisions regarding an arrest and charge under Section 30.06 on property that is government owned.

I don't see this as a simple issue at all. DAs wield a great deal of power and influence, especially in the larger metropolitan counties. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities for a bad court decision to affect our concealed carry rights through the misapplication of the law because of some poor sap had a crummy lawyer and the DA was dead set on making it stick.

Another point: How can one receive effective notice under Section 30.06 on government property, even considering the exceptions provided in Section 46.035? Effective notice must come from the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner. Who "owns" the city hall or council chambers? Who "owns" the VA hospital? I guess it could be argued that the "people" own these, and the mayor, council members, etc. are elected representatives of the people and, therefore qualify as "someone with apparent authority to act for the owner," but even that seems like a stretch.

MoJo wrote:Pick up the phone and call DPS and/or The Attorney General's Office if they can't give you the straight answer then there needs to be a court decision. You up to being the test case?

While individuals may file complaints with the Attorney General's office, individuals do not have standing to request an opinion.