TexasCHLforum.com

know if Westminister Manor on Jackson Street, a nursing home is posted 30.06? I have to travel there to attend a memorial service. Checked with texas3006.com and it is not listed. Thanks for any info. Stan

stash wrote:know if Westminister Manor on Jackson Street, a nursing home is posted 30.06? I have to travel there to attend a memorial service. Checked with texas3006.com and it is not listed. Thanks for any info. Stan

I think nursing homes are off-limits either way, 30.06 or not. You would have to figure out if the nursing home is licensed under chapter 242 ( Which if it's a nursing home I bet they are ) of the health and safety code.

This information shows up in statute 411.204.

Last time I was at Westminster Manor, late spring/early summer of 2009, there was what amounts to a "gunbusters" sign at the entrance to the "medical" wing. The entrances to the "residential" wing of the facility have no signs at all.

As to whether or not you can carry, I see your point about 411.204, but isn't PC 46.035 the binding law here for us CHLs? Hospitals/nursing homes must display proper 30.06 in order to keep us out. GC 411.204 just says they also have to display some version of 51% without the 51% part but doesn't specify that they are off limits to CHL, only that they have to post a sign.

CONFUSING. Especially for the hospitals/nursing homes. Seems two different sections of law are telling them 1) they MUST post this 51% sign without the 51% and 2) if they actually want to prohibit CHL, they also have to post 30.06

If a hospital/nursing home had this 51% type sign but no 30.06, I might be tempted to not carry so as not to be the test case for confusing mismatch of laws.

Anyway, below are the relevant sections, abbreviated to only included those parts of each code relevant to this discussion:

Government Code Sec. 411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.

(b) A hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the hospital or nursing home, as appropriate, a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c) other than the requirement that the sign include on its face the number "51".

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

*****

Penal Code Sec. 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.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

The GC 411.204 requirement for the nursing home to post is a leftover requirement from before PC 46.035 was passed. Now they must post that sign to be in compliance with useless laws and red tape and post a 30.06 sign if they want to keep you out.

Thanks for the info guys. I will be looking for the 30.06 when I go there.

Never could figure out how that 51% sign go associated with hospitals and nursing homes.

Stan

Oops - I think it just hit me re the 51% sign - its a sign like the 51% sign but without the 51%.

stash wrote:Thanks for the info guys. I will be looking for the 30.06 when I go there.

Never could figure out how that 51% sign go associated with hospitals and nursing homes.

Stan

Oops - I think it just hit me re the 51% sign - its a sign like the 51% sign but without the 51%.

Correct.
It has the notice but not the superimposed 51% in red.

And THAT's what is confusing ...

But, ... I'm just going to ramble here a bit ... consider who is the duty placed upon by each law.
Government Code Sec. 411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
this imposes a duty UPON those establishments to place signs. (I don't see it imposing a duty on CHLs?)
"give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."


I don't see a specific language requirement, like 30.06 requires here in Government Code Sec. 411.204.... other than giving notice, and the reference to the 51% sign implies language different than required by 30.06.

A 30.06 sign there would be perfect notice, but any other sign language that complies with the above may be sufficient.

whereas the following states that (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

it does NOT state that a sign which would comply with the over 51%, (no specific required language there) but with the abscense of a 51% in red, is ok?

However, the above imposes a duty upon the nursing home to give notice, rather than imposing a duty upon the CHL.

The issue I suppose is whether a TYPE OF sign complying with over 51% but absent the 51, instead of a 30.06 sign .. is "effective notice" and according to Penal Code Sec. 46.035. (i) it doesn't appear to be.... in my layman's opinion.

Still, as said above, and I agree ... "If a hospital/nursing home had this 51% type sign but no 30.06, I might be tempted to not carry so as not to be the test case for confusing mismatch of laws."

Penal Code Sec. 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.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

It's an interesting situation if they "post notice," and put up a 51% type sign, in compliance with their duty, but we don't recieve "effective notice" in accord with 30.06

It's almost like the government requiring them to post a gunbuster "notice" sign which doesn't give us "effective notice under Section 30.06."
(catch my drift?)
As a CHL, you must obey any valid 30.06 sign, and any valid 51% sign as the duty imposed on a CHL is stated in Penal Code Sec. 46.035
(catch my drift?)

A Hospital or Nursing home displaying a 30.06 sign ("effective notice"), is also complying with Government Code Sec. 411.204 in posting "Notice" and a compliant 30.06 sign prohibits licensees from carrying there. If they just post (some other notice/gunbuster/no firearms allowed/tobacco free zone/please don't spit on the floor/wash hands before returning to work/no longhairs allowed/no shoes no shirts no service/please don't eat the daisys sign) that isn't "effective notice" (30.06 sign) ...

Still, section 30.05 Penal code concerning carrying where "notice", but not "effective notice under 30.06" exists, may apply.
In other words, in this case, if arrested, you have a defense, though you may be charged, go to jail, hire a lawyer, and a lot of people "with a defense" are found guilty .....

Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(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.


I ain't a lawyer, and I could be wrong. I don't give legal advice, just my layman's opinion, which is worth every penny you paid for it.

What a nice surprise. Went to the memorial this week-end. No where did I find a compliant, non-compliant, ghost buster sign. I really did expect something. This place is a multi-story building with a sign in desk (with a real person) in a big lobby. No questions asked. Very professional operation.

RPB wrote: Still, section 30.05 Penal code concerning carrying where "notice", but not "effective notice under 30.06" exists, may apply.
In other words, in this case, if arrested, you have a defense, though you may be charged, go to jail, hire a lawyer, and a lot of people "with a defense" are found guilty .....

Point taken. However as I've said on this board before, prior to 1997 carrying a handgun anywhere with a CHL was only a Defense to Prosecution under 46.02b Unlawful Carrying Weapons. What was the point of getting the license? I got one in 1996 and I did carry.

I also challenge the statement that "a lot of people with a defense are found guilty". If you have a defense to prosecution, you shouldn't legally be able to be "prosecuted" under the statute. If you can provide examples to the contrary...

By the same logic, you could be prosecuted for UCW today, even though PC46.15 makes UCW "not applicable" if you have a CHL.

ScottDLS wrote:

RPB wrote: Still, section 30.05 Penal code concerning carrying where "notice", but not "effective notice under 30.06" exists, may apply.
In other words, in this case, if arrested, you have a defense, though you may be charged, go to jail, hire a lawyer, and a lot of people "with a defense" are found guilty .....

Point taken. However as I've said on this board before, prior to 1997 carrying a handgun anywhere with a CHL was only a Defense to Prosecution under 46.02b Unlawful Carrying Weapons. What was the point of getting the license? I got one in 1996 and I did carry.

I also challenge the statement that "a lot of people with a defense are found guilty". If you have a defense to prosecution, you shouldn't legally be able to be "prosecuted" under the statute. If you can provide examples to the contrary...

By the same logic, you could be prosecuted for UCW today, even though PC46.15 makes UCW "not applicable" if you have a CHL.

I agree with "shouldn't" but when it comes to government prosecuters, should and shouldn't aren't always understood by them. I have a specific example of an ex-brother-in-law who was found guilty of a felony (and probated) where he actually had a statutory AFFIRMATIVE defense, but the evidence he needed to present was declared inadmissible by the judge.

That's just one example I know personally, I've heard of others in my 25 years working at the law office from which I retired.

RPB wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

RPB wrote: Still, section 30.05 Penal code concerning carrying where "notice", but not "effective notice under 30.06" exists, may apply.
In other words, in this case, if arrested, you have a defense, though you may be charged, go to jail, hire a lawyer, and a lot of people "with a defense" are found guilty .....

Point taken. However as I've said on this board before, prior to 1997 carrying a handgun anywhere with a CHL was only a Defense to Prosecution under 46.02b Unlawful Carrying Weapons. What was the point of getting the license? I got one in 1996 and I did carry.

I also challenge the statement that "a lot of people with a defense are found guilty". If you have a defense to prosecution, you shouldn't legally be able to be "prosecuted" under the statute. If you can provide examples to the contrary...

By the same logic, you could be prosecuted for UCW today, even though PC46.15 makes UCW "not applicable" if you have a CHL.

I agree with "shouldn't" but when it comes to government prosecuters, should and shouldn't aren't always understood by them. I have a specific example of an ex-brother-in-law who was found guilty of a felony (and probated) where he actually had a statutory AFFIRMATIVE defense, but the evidence he needed to present was declared inadmissible by the judge.

That's just one example I know personally, I've heard of others in my 25 years working at the law office from which I retired.

Thank you for giving an example, but I should point out that an "affirmative defense to prosecution" is a weaker protection than a "defense to prosecution". An affirmative defense is not required to be refuted by the prosecutor or submitted to the jury. In a sense, you (defendant) have to prove the affirmative defense.

In "Defense to Prosecution", if you submit the defense to the jury, prosecutor must refute it "beyond a reasonable doubt" or you must be acquitted.

Yes, an Affirmative defense is weaker than a defense.

My point though, whether a defense or an affirmative defense, that "if it is submitted to a jury" in the first place, it was prosecuted.
"If you have a defense to prosecution, you shouldn't legally be able to be "prosecuted" under the statute."

And I agree morally with you that you "shouldn't be able to be prosecuted", but they do, at least sometimes.

And in the Ex B-I-L's case, the judge ruling his evidence inadmissible, kept the AFFIRMATIVE defense (and would also do the same with a defense) from being submitted to the jury at all.

That's all I'm saying, is that they can prosecute, they may, they may not, and your evidence may be admissible, in which case you may submit your defense to the jury, or it may be inadmissible and you get a very big problem.

That was all I was saying.

It's expensive, even though you have a defense you may get to submit to a jury.

-----------------
I know you know, but for anyone else reading this later, I'll post the following so they understand the differernce. And why inadmissible evidence kept the existance of an affirmative defense, or would also a defense, from even being known by the jury.

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

The Defense to Prosecution in 30.05 is pretty cut and dried and would be hard to get a judge to rule inadmissible..."Defense" that you have a CHL. Hard to refute. Not like the affirmative defense PC areas, which are all kinds of state of mind, intent, etc., etc.

Second, the reason I keep bringing up the original CHL law from '95-'96 is that the plastic was a "Defense to Prosecution" at the time and I don't hear anybody arguing that they were afraid to carry with a permit because they didn't want to defend themselves in court. Truth is you can get arrested for something that is not-applicable or not even illegal and you're still going to have to defend yourself. I don't think its that common, any more than being arrested for something for which you have a clear and widely known "Defense". However, it could happen. I'm not going to let that rule my behavior.

The FFL's that sell machine guns to the police forces in Texas only have a "Defense" (that it's NFA registered) to the "prohibited weapons" PC 46.05 and I don't see the departments buying from them locking them up. Also, I regularly shoot my lawfully registered machine gun at a range in Dallas where numerous police officers are present. I only have a "Defense" since my gun is NFA registered, but never had a hassle. If fact one range I go to is owned by a Deputy Sheriff in my county. Maybe since the Sheriff signed my NFA registration, Deputy figures it's OK.

Just sayin'....