TexasCHLforum.com

Okay, I have looked here and in the pdf issued by the Texas DPS on CHL law.

I found where specific types of building/location are off limits.
I cannot find the part about how any business may post, and if they have to use a 30.06 in order to be valid...and if posted, is it the case that they may only ask you to leave?

My CHL class was about 2 years ago, and I belive we covered this, but my memory isn't what it once was...

orionengnr wrote:Okay, I have looked here and in the pdf issued by the Texas DPS on CHL law.

I found where specific types of building/location are off limits.
I cannot find the part about how any business may post, and if they have to use a 30.06 in order to be valid...and if posted, is it the case that they may only ask you to leave?

My CHL class was about 2 years ago, and I belive we covered this, but my memory isn't what it once was...

Any private business may post a 30.06 sign. If it is posted in compliance with Texas Penal Code 30.06, then you may not enter with your concealed handgun.

If they discover you are carrying, you can be charged with 30.06, which is a class A Misdemeanor. If charged, your CHL will be suspended pending trial. If the police are called and contact you they will take your gun. If convicted of a Class A misdemeanor, your CHL will be revoked for 5 years. You will then have to wait 2 years after being eligible to apply again.

30.06 does not require that they tell you to leave first. If they post a proper 30.06 sign, then you have been given notice.


Texas Penal Code
§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

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a
concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if
the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act
for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical
to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by
holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may
not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both
English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at
least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(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.


If they have a person at the door telling everyone who enters, or just tells you that concealed handguns are prohibited, then you re in violation if you enter. If someone see a bulge or you print, or for whatever reason they suspect you are carrying AFTER you enter; if they tell you then to leave you must or it is a violation of 30.06.

Here's the new link to the Penal Code and 30.06.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... m#30.05.00

If I understand your question,, signage must comply with the stated 30.06 parameters.
But a business may simply give verbal notice. (Tell you to leave.)

Thank you.

TXI,
So if convicted of the Class A, you would loose your CHL for a total of 7 years if I understand correct?

TxFire wrote:TXI,
So if convicted of the Class A, you would loose your CHL for a total of 7 years if I understand correct?

correct. Don't forget though that the licence is suspended when charged. So, one would be doing without a licence until cleared in court. Just that part could be over a year. Then if the case ended in a conviction, add 7 more with the revocation.

lrb111 wrote:

TxFire wrote:TXI,
So if convicted of the Class A, you would loose your CHL for a total of 7 years if I understand correct?

correct. Don't forget though that the licence is suspended when charged. So, one would be doing without a licence until cleared in court. Just that part could be over a year. Then if the case ended in a conviction, add 7 more with the revocation.

Actually, the license is not suspended when charged. The license is subject to suspension when charged. The license holder is entitled to a hearing in JP court to determine if the license shall be suspended prior to final disposition of the case.

In short, there is no "automatic" suspension or revocation.

May not be automatic suspinsion by the letter of the law but I would think not being suspended so you could keep it until the final deposition would be like the possibility of getting written permission from a School superintendent to carry in the classroom. Pretty near impossible.

I am just curious - lets say you are shopping in a store that it not posted 30.06 and you are carrying in a fanny pack (I know not the best way) and are approached by a store security person(not LEO) who asks you if you have a gun in the fanny pack. How would one respond? By the way the fanny pack would no way scream gun.

Stash

longtooth wrote:May not be automatic suspinsion by the letter of the law but I would think not being suspended so you could keep it until the final deposition would be like the possibility of getting written permission from a School superintendent to carry in the classroom. Pretty near impossible.

"Pretty near impossible" may or may not be the case. Let's take a look at some of the necessary steps to suspend:

The license holder must be formally charged with a Class A or B misidemeanor.

The LEO shall prepare an affidavit of a form provided by the DPS stating the reason for the suspension. The LEO must also attach to the affidavit the reports relating to the license holder.

The affidavit and attachments must be sent to the appropriate DPS office not later than the 5th working day after the affidavit is prepared.

If the license holder has not surrendered the license or if the license was not seized as evidence, the license holder shall surrender the license to the DPS no later than the 10th day after the license holder receives the notice of suspension for the department UNLESS the license holder requests a hearing from the DPS.

The license holder's request must be written and addressed to the DPS in Austin. The license holder's request for hearing must reach the DPS in Austin prior to the 30th day after receipt of teh written notice.

Upon receipt of the request for hearing, the DPS shall promptly [notice that no specific time is required] schedule a hearing in the appropriate just court in the county of residence of the license holder. That is, the DPS shall file the appropriate petition in justice court and send a copy of the petition to the license holder.

The hearing must be scheduled within 30 days of receipt of request for a hearing. The hearing shall be held expeditiously but in no event more than 60 days after the date the license holder requested the hearing.

The hearing may be reset on the motion of either party, by agreement of the parties, or by the court as necessay to accomodate the court's docket.

Both parties may present evidence at the hearing. The justice court shall determine if the suspension is supported by a preponderence of the evidence.

If the justice court determines that the suspension IS NOT supported by a preponderence of the evidence, the court shall order the DPS to return the license to the license holder.

Either party adversely affected by the ruling of the justice court my APPEAL the ruling by filing within 30 days after the ruling a petition in a county court at law.

Bottom line, suspension / revocation is not a slam-dunk for the DPS unless the license holder rolls over and plays dead.

I would reply that the contents of my fanny pack were of no concern of his and then go on about my business and see where he takes the conversation from there.

stash wrote:I am just curious - lets say you are shopping in a store that it not posted 30.06 and you are carrying in a fanny pack (I know not the best way) and are approached by a store security person(not LEO) who asks you if you have a gun in the fanny pack. How would one respond? By the way the fanny pack would no way scream gun.

Stash

I would tell the security person, "no".

You are under no obligation to divulge that information to ANYONE but a law enforcement officer or a magistrate. And I'm pretty sure that they can only ask you if they are "investigating a crime", in which they ask for your ID. (clear me up on this TXI)

Also, to add to the "effective notice" point. If the business distributes any "written communication" to their patrons that informs them that concealed carry is not permitted, you must leave or risk being charged. The 30.06 sign requirements only apply to a "posted" notice. The actual notice can come in any form if not being "posted".

txinvestigator wrote:

stash wrote:I am just curious - lets say you are shopping in a store that it not posted 30.06 and you are carrying in a fanny pack (I know not the best way) and are approached by a store security person(not LEO) who asks you if you have a gun in the fanny pack. How would one respond? By the way the fanny pack would no way scream gun.

Stash

I would tell the security person, "no".

and leave it at that...Make sure you smile...And go about your business...Give them no reason to get "themselves" into more trouble by a cross look or any reason to press the issue further...

I see this whole situation as extremely unlikely to occur...