TexasCHLforum.com

Folks,

In discussions of CHL law and specifically "notice" as provided for in PC 30.06 there is some muddying of the water by the imprecise use of terms. PC 30.06 provides for "oral" notice and "written" notice. There is no reference to the term 'verbal'.

Oral refers to the spoken word.

Written refers to the graphic representation of a word. In the case of PC 30.06 it can refer to a "note or other document" or to " a sign".

Verbal can refer to both oral and written and therefore is not sufficiently precise to describe the two specific types of notices provided for in the statute.

It is not my point to be unnecessarily picky but the law depends on very specific words and a variation from those in the law can lead to inaccurate interpretations. There is already enough potential for inaccurate interpretations without throwing in words not found in the statutes.

I intend this to be a constructive reminder and not to be picky (Synonyms: fussy, particular, anal retentive, finicky, pedantic )

While, Wiktionary and Wikepedia are not my favorite forms of reference they are quick and easy and serve the purpose here.



DEFINITION OF ORAL
Look up oral in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The word oral may refer to:

As an adjective:

the mouth
speech communication as opposed to writing



DEFINITION OF VERBAL

verbal (not comparable)
Of, or relating to words.
Concerned with the words, rather than the substance of a text.
Consisting of words only.
Expressly spoken or written, as opposed to implied




DEFINITION OF WRITTEN

written (comparative more written, superlative most written)

Of, relating or characteristic of writing (i.e., of that which has been written)
I can speak Japanese fairly well, but I have no understanding whatsoever of written Japanese.


Is there a smily for stepping down off of a soapbox are returning to regular posting? Anyway, that is what would go here.

Wasn't there a pretty good baseball player named Oral something or other several years back?

CWOOD wrote:Folks,

In discussions of CHL law and specifically "notice" as provided for in PC 30.06 there is some muddying of the water by the imprecise use of terms. PC 30.06 provides for "oral" notice and "written" notice. There is no reference to the term 'verbal'.

Oral refers to the spoken word.

Written refers to the graphic representation of a word. In the case of PC 30.06 it can refer to a "note or other document" or to " a sign".

Verbal can refer to both oral and written and therefore is not sufficiently precise to describe the two specific types of notices provided for in the statute.

It is not my point to be unnecessarily picky but the law depends on very specific words and a variation from those in the law can lead to inaccurate interpretations. There is already enough potential for inaccurate interpretations without throwing in words not found in the statutes.

I intend this to be a constructive reminder and not to be picky (Synonyms: fussy, particular, anal retentive, finicky, pedantic )

While, Wiktionary and Wikepedia are not my favorite forms of reference they are quick and easy and serve the purpose here.



DEFINITION OF ORAL
Look up oral in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The word oral may refer to:

As an adjective:

the mouth
speech communication as opposed to writing



DEFINITION OF VERBAL

verbal (not comparable)
Of, or relating to words.
Concerned with the words, rather than the substance of a text.
Consisting of words only.
Expressly spoken or written, as opposed to implied




DEFINITION OF WRITTEN

written (comparative more written, superlative most written)

Of, relating or characteristic of writing (i.e., of that which has been written)
I can speak Japanese fairly well, but I have no understanding whatsoever of written Japanese.


Is there a smily for stepping down off of a soapbox are returning to regular posting? Anyway, that is what would go here.

Since you pointed out the distinction, I've taken to using the term "oral" in my posts on related topics topic because that's the word that appears in the law. However, I think it's fairly common usage for verbal to mean "spoken" and written to mean well...written. If someone is constructing an argument where their intent in the usage is very clear, I'm not certain it makes that much difference.

---Thread hijack alert----
Now let's start a thread on the term "civilian", which when I was in the military, I took to mean people NOT in the military (of either side). If they told us to minimize civilian casualties, I didn't take it to mean open season on firemen. But the dictionary definition suggests a broader interpretation of who is not a civilian. I haven't seen the term defined in state or federal law, although it might appear in the UCMJ (federal law).
---Endhread hijack alert----

Seems strange that 'verbal/oral' is NOT specfic at all, NO wording requirements, etc. ???

How do you notify verbally/orally in English/Spanish and 1 inch block letters ??? Noisy room ???

Is verbal/oral warning valid AFTER entering, NOT at each entryway ,and NOT to each and every person entering... etc.

-Really not a good law at closer look- (The verbal/oral part)

A what if...
There is a large gathering of people and AFTER everyone is present someone gets on the speakers and 'advises' anyone with a weapon, CHL, etc. to leave.
Do you stand up and leave thereby letting everyone know you are CHL?
(off duty LEO?)

The 30.06 signs law clearly shows the intent was to give a FAIR and ADVANCED notice to the CHL. The intent should apply to verbal/oral the same way.

Who is authorized, what wording, languages, what location, times, proof it was given, etc.?

CHL is limited by laws, so by the same token, CHL should be Protected by the law with limits AND penaltys for those who do harm CHLers.


-----

Regards,
Blue


(someone please wake the next soapboxer - )

Oldgringo wrote:Wasn't there a pretty good baseball player named Oral something or other several years back?

The Bulldog!!

For all you Wikipedia fans.

Orel Hershiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orel_Hershiser" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oldgringo wrote:Wasn't there a pretty good baseball player named Oral something or other several years back?

There used to be some preacher up in Tulsa...

I think the law makes a very clear distinction by using the proper terms. "Verbal", in common usage, can be either spoke or written. "Oral" is only spoken. The "notice" in 30.06 can be either written (with specific verbiage and other requirements), or oral (no specific requirement: "You! Get out!" is good enough).

It's good like it stands. Leave it alone.

I feel your pain.

blue wrote:A what if...
There is a large gathering of people and AFTER everyone is present someone gets on the speakers and 'advises' anyone with a weapon, CHL, etc. to leave.
Do you stand up and leave thereby letting everyone know you are CHL?
(off duty LEO?)

If the person standing up meets the other parts of the law, and you do not want to be violating the law, yes you do leave. This does not tell everyone you are a CHL, just that you are carrying a weapon and do not want to be where you are not welcome. You could be there 100% legally until that point, either as a CHL, as a traveler, as a military person carrying under the requirements of your duty, or any of a few other reasons. If you have a CHL, you would be guilty of violating 30.06 if you stayed, but if you do not have a CHL and are not an LEO, you would be guilty of violating 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) if you stayed.

The 30.06 signs law clearly shows the intent was to give a FAIR and ADVANCED notice to the CHL. The intent should apply to verbal/oral the same way.

It does apply the same way. It is advance notice in that you are not violating the law until you receive the notice.

Who is authorized, what wording, languages, what location, times, proof it was given, etc.?

The owner or anyone acting with the apparent authority of the owner is authorized. Just any Joe Blow cannot do this. The really interesting part is that the person making the announcement may have the authority and it would not be valid (if the authority is not apparent) and the person may not have the authority and the notice would still be valid (if he had apparent authority - like the shift manager of a store).

CHL is limited by laws, so by the same token, CHL should be Protected by the law with limits AND penaltys for those who do harm CHLers.

CHL is protected by the laws and cannot be harmed. But, it is not a harm for me to tell you you cannot come on my property. Coming on my property or entering my business is a privilege I extend to you and can revoke at any time. This is one of the big concepts behind property rights and why the governemnt cannot ban now except for certain circumstances.

srothstein wrote:blue wrote:
A what if...
There is a large gathering of people and AFTER everyone is present someone gets on the speakers and 'advises' anyone with a weapon, CHL, etc. to leave.
Do you stand up and leave thereby letting everyone know you are CHL?
(off duty LEO?)

If the person standing up meets the other parts of the law, and you do not want to be violating the law, yes you do leave. This does not tell everyone you are a CHL, just that you are carrying a weapon and do not want to be where you are not welcome. You could be there 100% legally until that point, either as a CHL, as a traveler, as a military person carrying under the requirements of your duty, or any of a few other reasons. If you have a CHL, you would be guilty of violating 30.06 if you stayed, but if you do not have a CHL and are not an LEO, you would be guilty of violating 30.05 (Criminal Trespass) if you stayed.

This may have been presented as a 'what if', but another member posted this exact scenario a year or two back. Maybe someone else' search fu is working better.

He lived in an apartment complex and a meeting of residents was being held in a common area of the complex. There was an officer present, but I don't recall if it was the officer or someone else who asked if any CHLs were present at the beginning of the meeting.

Edited to add:

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... eeting+chl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry. It was only a few months ago.

srothstein wrote:CHL is protected by the laws and cannot be harmed. But, it is not a harm for me to tell you you cannot come on my property. Coming on my property or entering my business is a privilege I extend to you and can revoke at any time. This is one of the big concepts behind property rights and why the governemnt cannot ban now except for certain circumstances.

I am uncompromising as to private property rights in general, but here is what I struggle with. If I have restricted access in general, my home, my land, a private club, secured facility et al I can allow or deny access to anyone. But if I otherwise allow unfettered access to the general public how can I restrict someone simply because they are the most law abiding amongst us, after all isn't that what a CHL holder is in principle?

Also there have been more often then not when encountering a proper 30.06 sign that it was after I had driven a considerable distance, expended a good deal of time and have walked from my parking space in East Kayatz then find out that it is posted. Now I have to turn around, walk back, disarm, expose myself to whatever hazard may be laying in wait on the way back...if I want to remain legal. Simply taking business elsewhere is not always and option.

I realize this is treacherous ground I'm on, and I have struggled with this, but I am really starting to lean toward the POV that if you allow public access, you should not be able to restrict access by lawfully armed persons without some sort of express liability. IOW if anything happens to me, my family or for that matter anyone I may have been able to protect...you're liable.

chabouk wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: The "notice" in 30.06 can be either written (with specific verbiage and other requirements), or oral (no specific requirement: "You! Get out!" is good enough).

Now if that verbal/oral order is given by someone with the same optic disorder as the great character actor, Jack Elam, you may ask , "who....me"?

Dragonfighter wrote:I realize this is treacherous ground I'm on, and I have struggled with this, but I am really starting to lean toward the POV that if you allow public access, you should not be able to restrict access by lawfully armed persons without some sort of express liability. IOW if anything happens to me, my family or for that matter anyone I may have been able to protect...you're liable.

If they are liable, they would be liable whether you had a CHL or not. If you had a CHL and did not carry would they be liable?

Take it for what its worth...I believe "oral" to be communicates...

And if you receive "oral" notification per 30.06, I had heard a legal opinion that the communication does not have to adhere to the language of 30.06

The person can simply say "I do not want you to carry a gun in my (__fill in the blank__)."

Thats what I recall...So I do my best to not get myself in a position where someone has to be snooty and tell me something as assinine as that...

I'm jus' sayin'...

The bottom line for oral notice, is that it's almost impossible to prove unless the person giving notice is in a one-on-one discussion with the person receiving notice, and there are witnesses.

General loudspeaker announcements just aren't going to cut it. "I'm sorry, no, I wasn't paying attention."