30.05 Signs at Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center

[Flatland2D]

I went to the Auto and Truck Show at the Henry B. Gonzales Convention Center in San Antonio today and noticed this sign about criminal trespass.



At first I glanced at the sign and disregarded it since 1) this place was city owned and 2) didn't meet any of the 30.06 requirements. On the way out I noticed it was referencing TPC 30.05 and it got me thinking. I did a quick search on the internet on my phone during the bus ride back to the parking lot. I didn't have enough time to really look into it so I continued when I got home.

From what I gather, when 30.06 came about businesses were able to restrict entry from those carrying a concealed handgun. However, since the Convention Center couldn't post 30.06 because it is city owned, it seems like section 30.05 was exploited to try and do what 30.06 does. Then 30.05 was amended in 2005 to say that the basis for prespass cannot be because of a handgun or other weapon. Am I on the right track?

Just trying to make sense of it all.

[jimlongley]

At least they don't go as far as the city of Dallas, where they include CHL's in the text, even though that's not the proper statute.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Flatland2D:

You are correct about that sign not effecting CHL's. You are also generally correct on the legislative history of TPC §30.06, with one difference. After 30.06 was enacted, 30.05 never applied to a CHL, if the sole reason for excluding them was the presence of a gun. SB501 passed in 2003 to preclude governmental agencies from using 30.06 and 30.05 was also amended just to make it abundantly clear that it did not apply to CHL's. It was overkill, but it kept dishonest city officials from attempting to rely upon 30.05.

Chas.

[Glockamolie]

My only problem with the wording of 30.05 is that the above is a defense to prosecution, but not an exemption.

That's a great way to put just enough fear in to a law-abiding CHL holder to not carry there. What a load of poop.

[Popshot]

I really don't like the concept of "defense to prosecution" either. It basically puts you on the hot seat, since you may have to go to court so you can prove that a 30.05 does not apply to CHL. In the mean time, the organization that put up the sign has bigger pockets than you, is not concerned about the legal costs, and continues to post signs that are not applicable.

Why I really don't like being prohibited from entry with CHL: Disarming in the vehicle, locking up my gear, then depending upon someone else for security, then returning to the vehicle to unlock and re-arm. Extra handling of the equipment in tight quarters is not condusive to peace of mind and to effective concealment.

[kauboy]

I saw a sign this weekend at our local community center that referenced 30.05. The main difference from you experience was that it was a proper sign. I'm not sure of the whole "city owned" side of it, but the sign was properly stated. The very first line was "Unless licensed under Chapter 411 Subchapter H of the Government Code.." I thought that was great. I will certainly be using that establishment whenever possible once the plastic arrives.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My only problem with the wording of 30.05 is that the above is a defense to prosecution, but not an exemption.

That's a great way to put just enough fear in to a law-abiding CHL holder to not carry there. What a load of poop.

I understand your concern, but there is no way around it. TPC §30.05 can be used to keep anyone including a CHL from entering property. The only exception is excluding a CHL solely because he/she has a handgun; then the requirements of TPC §30.06 must be met.

For example, if a business owner wants to exclude anyone without shoes and a shirt from a business, he/she will use TPC §30.05 to do so and it doesn't matter if trespasser has a CHL or not. If the law simply said "30.05 doesn't apply to a CHL," then he wouldn't be able to enforce his proper attire requirement.

As for the affirmative defense issue, unless you have a blanket exception to a TPC provision, then there must be a method by which a determination can be made as to why the CHL was excluded. That mechanism is a defense or an affirmative defense.

We need to also remember that a "no guns" sign based upon TPC §30.05 is enforceable against anyone other than a LEO and a CHL. As a practical matter, if a property owner attempts to have a CHL arrested and relies upon an improper sign, then it’s likely the officer won’t make the arrest, or the DA will refuse charges.

Chas.

[TxFire]

Funny you bring this up, I was at the Dallas Convention Center today for the Texas EMS conference and noticed an old sign at the entrance that mentioned 30.05 and used wording in an attempt to prevent CHL's, but was obviously NOT at 30.06 proper sign. The building is city owned anyway. This was one of the older entrances, I checked the newer entrances and found no such signs.