Does 30.06 trump 46.15 [b] (3), or vice-versa?

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:23 pm

Remember this one?

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... highlight=

Time for a new one.

If while driving and carrying under CHL, and you are about to enter a parking lot posted 30.06, are you exempt if you meet 46.15(3) and its presumptions? What rule of law governs?

If you say no,

How about I am a passenger in a car and am carrying via CHL. Driver has no CHL but meets traveling presumptions. We are about to enter 30.06 parking lot, I give him gun and he conceals on or about his person, and also meets all other presumptions. Is he legal? What about me?

I say nowhere in law does it say a CHL is precluded from 46.15 (3) coverage, so you are OK.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:43 am

There you go, thinking like a defense lawyer!

I don't have an answer, but neither does anyone else. That's the way it happens with the law of unintended consequences.

Kevin

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:21 am

Renegade wrote:Time for a new one.

If while driving and carrying under CHL, and you are about to enter a parking lot posted 30.06, are you exempt if you meet 46.15(3) and its presumptions?

No, TPC Â§46.15(b)(3) "traveling" is a defense to a UCW charge under 46.02. It is no defense against a trespassing charge under either TPC Â§Â§30.05 or 30.06.

Renegade wrote:How about I am a passenger in a car and am carrying via CHL. Driver has no CHL but meets traveling presumptions. We are about to enter 30.06 parking lot, I give him gun and he conceals on or about his person, and also meets all other presumptions. Is he legal? What about me?

As noted above, "traveling" is not a defense to a criminal trespass charge. The answer to this scenario will lie in whether or not a 30.06 sign constitutes notice under TPC Â§30.05. Remember, 30.05 can be used to prosecute a non-CHL holder for entering property with a firearm, so long as the actor was given notice. Remember also that Â§30.05 does not require the notice to include any special language as does Â§30.06. So, will a 30.06 sign suffice as notice for 30.05? As Kevin said, I donâ€™t know but arguing this as a defense to a criminal trespass charge would put one on the cutting edge of the law - thatâ€™s where most folks bleed to death. (Since a 30.06 sign makes it clear that the property owner doesnâ€™t want guns on the property, I suspect it would be found to meet the notice standard of Â§30.05, but thatâ€™s just my take on it.)

Here's another wrinkle. If you as a CHL hand your pistol to your buddy who puts it in his belt and then tries to argue "traveling" as a defense to a trespass charge, both of you could possibly be charged with conspiracy to commit a criminal trespass. [This is stretching it a bit I admit, but be very careful working with someone in an attempt to circumvent criminal statutes.

Chas.

Renegade · Post by **Renegade** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:46 am

I guess the crux is whether or not you are carrying under authority of CHL or not, which was what txinvestigator pointed out in the other thread, thus giving exemption to a LEO. If you are, then 30.06 still applies, if you are not, then 30.06 does not apply. It would be highly unusual for any court to rule a CHL has less carry rights than a non-CHL.

So far, I have only seen 2 places that post 30.06 at parking lots, and both are businesses a non-employee would not normally enter.

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:07 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Renegade wrote:Time for a new one.

If while driving and carrying under CHL, and you are about to enter a parking lot posted 30.06, are you exempt if you meet 46.15(3) and its presumptions?

No, TPC Â§46.15(b)(3) "traveling" is a defense to a UCW charge under 46.02. It is no defense against a trespassing charge under either TPC Â§Â§30.05 or 30.06.

Renegade wrote:How about I am a passenger in a car and am carrying via CHL. Driver has no CHL but meets traveling presumptions. We are about to enter 30.06 parking lot, I give him gun and he conceals on or about his person, and also meets all other presumptions. Is he legal? What about me?

As noted above, "traveling" is not a defense to a criminal trespass charge. The answer to this scenario will lie in whether or not a 30.06 sign constitutes notice under TPC Â§30.05. Remember, 30.05 can be used to prosecute a non-CHL holder for entering property with a firearm, so long as the actor was given notice. Remember also that Â§30.05 does not require the notice to include any special language as does Â§30.06. So, will a 30.06 sign suffice as notice for 30.05? As Kevin said, I donâ€™t know but arguing this as a defense to a criminal trespass charge would put one on the cutting edge of the law - thatâ€™s where most folks bleed to death. (Since a 30.06 sign makes it clear that the property owner doesnâ€™t want guns on the property, I suspect it would be found to meet the notice standard of Â§30.05, but thatâ€™s just my take on it.)

Here's another wrinkle. If you as a CHL hand your pistol to your buddy who puts it in his belt and then tries to argue "traveling" as a defense to a trespass charge, both of you could possibly be charged with conspiracy to commit a criminal trespass. [This is stretching it a bit I admit, but be very careful working with someone in an attempt to circumvent criminal statutes.

Chas.

Thanks for that answer Charles.