TexasCHLforum.com

I was just musing about the PC code and wondered, legally, what it would mean if someone in control of a property that was posted with valid 30.06 notification told an individual CHL holder that were allowed to carry.

As I read the following code:

(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: (proceeds to describe notice)

So it seems to me that if consent is obtained, it would any written communication. But I am always confused by the legalize wordings.

Anyway, I am more just curious for the purposes of better understand the statues.

That's a good question Terry. I don't think that a verbal consent can over rule the sign.

Sure, if the person who put the 30.06 up said it was OK for you to carry, then you wold be legal. Number one, unless they were laying a trap for you, who's gonna call the police? And who is gonna press charges for you trespassing?

And, doesn't have to be written to allow, just verbal and they must be in control of the property. However, unless I was 110% sure they were the ones in control and they wouldn't weasel on what they told you, I would ask for it in writing.

However, this would be a rare situation any place the person in control of would post a 30.06, then I would think they wouldn't want anyone carrying. The only case I am aware of on this is a restaurant owner who is a CHL but supposedly posts his restaurant with a 30.06. Kind of the 'I'm better than the other CHL's' so I can carry, but you can't.

...the law says
"...on property of another without effective consent; and..."


...and...the all-important word...
...the rest of 30.06 doesn't apply if you've been given "effective consent"...and someone with authority to act for the owner or the owner can give that consent...


...that option isn't there in a 51% situation where the STATE dictates what happens...but under the 30.06 law...the option is the property owner's...


as Penal Code
1.07. Definitions.


(19) "Effective consent" includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if:
(A) induced by force, threat, or fraud;
(B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner;
(C) given by a person who by reason of youth, mental disease or defect, or intoxication is known by the actor to be unable to make reasonable decisions; or
(D) given solely to detect the commission of an offense.

Keith B wrote:Number one, unless they were laying a trap for you, who's gonna call the police? And who is gonna press charges for you trespassing?

I have a friend who was kept in a "friendly" conversation with the landowner until the police arrived and arrested him for trespass. Unless it's written or recorded on tape, it's a "he said, she said" case.

...was it CHL related or just trespass? was he convicted? did the person acting for the owner of the property verbally tell him he was welcome there?

speedsix wrote:...was it CHL related or just trespass? was he convicted? did the person acting for the owner of the property verbally tell him he was welcome there?

It wasn't a CHL case so this may be "apples and oranges". This happened in California while he was hunting on what he thought was public land when he ran into the land owner. The land owner called the police kept him there telling him "don't worry about it, it was an honest mistake." After a couple of years in court and paying his lawyer, he finally plead guilty.

...so there's proof that jerks not only vote but can own land...what a low-life yellow-bellied critter that was!!!

speedsix wrote:...so there's proof that jerks not only vote but can own land...what a low-life yellow-bellied critter that was!!!

It was very sad. My friend had to sell all of his guns to pay his lawyer.
After that he gave up on hunting.

...the wheel will come 'round for that guy someday...everyone needs a little mercy sometimes...

speedsix wrote: ...and...the all-important word...
...the rest of 30.06 doesn't apply if you've been given "effective consent"...and someone with authority to act for the owner or the owner can give that consent...

Yeah, that's the way I read it also. The 'and' is the key.

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:Number one, unless they were laying a trap for you, who's gonna call the police? And who is gonna press charges for you trespassing?

I have a friend who was kept in a "friendly" conversation with the landowner until the police arrived and arrested him for trespass. Unless it's written or recorded on tape, it's a "he said, she said" case.

Yes, hence my 100% rule. If I don't know the person telling me it's OK, then I won't be there in the first place.

I want written permission, same as hunting on private property that's not owned by family.

The days of, "my word is my bond" are long gone. IOW, if it ain't in writin', it didn't happen.

This came up in another thread regarding gun retailers (typically pawn shops) that post their property with a 30.06 sign.

If an employee hands you a gun you bought while you are in the store, then you would be in violation of 30.06 since the sign is posted (assuming you are also a CHL). However, the general consensus seemed to be that the employee was giving you effective consent to carry since they knowingly handed you a concealed handgun (in the gun case). Some people felt that the "implied consent" was limited to only the specific gun they handed you and only if carried in the exact manner / case in which it was given to you, and also expired at the end of that day. I don't think that anyone addressed the angle of whether the employee handing you the gun needed to be "in control of the property".

The point being that even if you get implied consent, there can be implied limitations on that consent.