30.06 Posting On Parking Lots

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:34 pm

I'm hoping for some clarification. I can't enter a properly posted business (with concealed handgun(licensed)). I can't enter their properly posted parking lot. However, if before I enter the lot, I case / lock my gun in the trunk (no longer "on or about my person"???), am I OK (legal) to then enter the lot.

For example, it's late at night, I'm on the road, have a hotel reservation, drive up and see the posted lot. I'm curious is there a way I can legally park. In this scenario, I may choose not to take my business elsewhere (if possible not too) for the comfort and convenience of my family needing sleep.

Any thoughts???

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:09 pm

If a parking lot is properly posted with a 30.06 sign, then you cannot legally carry a handgun, or have one in your car even if it is locked in a trunk. In the not-to-distant past, there was a great deal of confusion concerning private parking lots, as people tried to use the 46.035(f)(3) definition of "premises" to argue that a 30.06 sign at the edge of the driveway only applied to the building. This is not the case, as the definition of "premises" found in 46.035(f)(3) is not applicable to Section 30.06.

Another misconception is that the federal Firearms Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") will trump 30.06, if the "traveler" meets the other requirements of coming within the scope of the statute. This too is mistaken. FOPA will keep you from being arrested for violation of state "no carry" or "firearm prohibition" laws; it doesn't trump a private property owner's rights to control his/her property by using trespass laws.

The hotel room itself would be an interesting law school exam question, but we don't need to run that rabbit trail now.

Regards,
Chas.

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:33 pm

Charles,

Thanks. I understand that 30.06 on the property (vs. the building) causes restriction of carry on the property. However, I was hoping there was a legal way to case/lock/make inaccessable/etc., that would allow for "storage" out of reach, or not on or about your person, in the vehicle and perhaps not be subject to 30.06 statute.

I guess the short answer is find out about posting in advance of a trip or take your chances that you may have to stay / eat / shop elsewhere

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:36 pm

....or park

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:12 pm

Charles is the lawyer, but....

I have to say that I disagree that 30.06 covers guns in the trunk. If you've disarmed and stored a gun in the trunk, it's not "on or about your person"; you're not "carrying". PC 30.06 only applies to licensees who are carrying.

The argument could be made that a 30.06 sign means "no guns", not just "no concealed handguns", and I don't know how it would come out.

Kevin

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:00 pm

KBCraig wrote:If you've disarmed and stored a gun in the trunk, it's not "on or about your person"; you're not "carrying". PC 30.06 only applies to licensees who are carrying.

You are "carrying" when you dive past the 30.06 sign into the parking lot. At that point, you've violated 30.06. When you get out of your car and the gun is in the trunk, you are not at that point violating 30.06, but you will be again when you get back in the car to drive away.

KBCrain wrote:The argument could be made that a 30.06 sign means "no guns", not just "no concealed handguns", and I don't know how it would come out.

Not a 30.06 sign, but a generic "no gun" sign does prohibit long guns, even by CHL's. Even the "defense to prosecution" language in 30.05, making it inapplicable to CHL's, refers only to carrying of handguns by CHL's. Man, I hate saying this on a public forum! :(

Regards,
Chas.

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:14 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
KBCraig wrote:If you've disarmed and stored a gun in the trunk, it's not "on or about your person"; you're not "carrying". PC 30.06 only applies to licensees who are carrying.
You are "carrying" when you dive past the 30.06 sign into the parking lot. At that point, you've violated 30.06. When you get out of your car and the gun is in the trunk, you are not at that point violating 30.06, but you will be again when you get back in the car to drive away.

Just to make sure we are talking about the same circumstances... Grillking's original situation called for "However, if before I enter the lot, I case / lock my gun in the trunk (no longer "on or about my person"???), am I OK (legal) to then enter the lot. "

The scenario as proposed didn't involve carrying ("on or about your person") past the parking lot sign; the gun would be stored before crossing that point.

I've never heard anyone suggest that a handgun secured in the trunk constitutes "carrying" under PC-46.02/GC-411(h). Do you believe having a handgun secured in a trunk is "carrying", and thus a violation of 30.06 to enter a properly posted parking lot?

This would be completely new to me. Is there another portion of law or case law defining "carrying" to include a secured trunk, or anything other than "on or about" one's person?

Thanks,

Kevin

txinvestigator · Post by **txinvestigator** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:22 pm

I think the point is that a private business that posts a parking lot sign, whether 30.06 compliant or not, is clearly making it known that guns are not allowed on the property.

We are getting too caught up in the 30.06 law.

There are 2 trespass laws. One applies to CHL holders otherwise exempt from 46.02, UCW.

The other is 30.05. Thats the law where a sign such as "No shirt, no shoes, NO SERVICE" can be enforced.

If you lock the gun in the trunk, you are no longer carrying under the CHL law, so you could fall under 30.05 if the sign clearly states no guns on the property.

Is that as confusing as it looks to me?

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:37 pm

Also remember that if you find yourself on or in a 30.06 posted area and they find out you are carrying (fat chance if your concealing properly) if they tell you to leave the property and you do so immediately by the nearest exit you have complied with the 30.06 law. At least that's the way it was explained to me in CHL class.

GrillKing · Post by **GrillKing** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:38 pm

one eyed fat man,

That's not my understanding of the law. If you pass a proper 30.06 sign while carrying under license, they don't have to ask you to leave. They can call police and you are subject to arrest. 30.06 OR verbal request (even w/o any signage) is cause to leave.

I plan to be conservative in my interpretation of the law and don't plan to make myself a test case!

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:29 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I think txinvestigator answered the question. Even if a 30.06 sign does not apply to a handgun in the trunk, 30.05 does not require specific language and any sign that gets the "don't bring guns in here" message across will trigger 30.05.

Okay, that's what I thought we both meant. I allowed for a 30.06 sign invoking "no guns past this point", which would include long guns. But in this scenario it would be a 30.05 violation, not 30.06, since there is no "carrying" involved.

I asked for clarification because you opined that a handgun in the trunk is "carrying". I concede that it is a violation of 30.05 (based on any "no guns" sign, including 30.06). But I still have a certain amount of doubt, based on whether a 30.06 sign means "no guns", or "no concealed carry (including CHLs".

I wouldn't want to push the issue, though.

As CHL holders, we want the protection of our licenses to be as broad as possible. I would never concede that a handgun in the trunk is not covered by my CHL.

Remember, non-CHL defendants attempting to argue they were not "carrying" to avoid a conviction under 46.02 are in a markedly different position than a CHL wanting the broadest protection possible.

Okay, I admit you've got me stumped here, but I'm willing to listen to your reasoning. How is any handgun that you're not "carrying" affected by having, or not having, a CHL? (Other than the NICS bye, of course.)

If a CHL is arrested for DUI, but he had conscientiously secured his handgun in the trunk before drinking, would you still argue that it is "covered" by his CHL? In this case, it would be a detriment, not a protection.

I'm enjoying this forum for the different points of view than are found elsewhere. Thanks!

Kevin

gigag04 · Post by **gigag04** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:42 pm

KBCraig wrote:If a CHL is arrested for DUI, but he had conscientiously secured his handgun in the trunk before drinking, would you still argue that it is "covered" by his CHL? In this case, it would be a detriment, not a protection.

Now THIS is a good question.

If you have had too many, and you unload and secure your carry piece in the trunk, and let someone else drive, but you get ID'ed and they search (after making them get a warrant of course) could you get screwed?

-nick

jimlongley · Post by **jimlongley** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:42 pm

In my narrow view, which may not be applicable, if you stop a block away and lock your handgun in a box, in your trunk, you are not really carrying concealed anymore.

It seems to me that if you are not carrying "under the authority of..." then the 30.06 sign shouldn't apply to you.

It also seems to me that if someone wants to block someone else from entering with ANY firearm, the 30.06 sign in and of itself is not enough because thta section of the law is limited to licensed concealed handgun carry, and they also need to post a 30.05 sign, which also seems only to relate to CHLs and put up other "No guns allowed" signs to cover no-CHLs and rifles and shotguns.

Â§ 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.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Â§ 23, eff. Sept. 1,
1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Â§ 9.24, eff.
Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1178, Â§ 2, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:51 pm

KBCraig wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: I think txinvestigator answered the question. Even if a 30.06 sign does not apply to a handgun in the trunk, 30.05 does not require specific language and any sign that gets the "don't bring guns in here" message across will trigger 30.05.
Okay, that's what I thought we both meant. I allowed for a 30.06 sign invoking "no guns past this point", which would include long guns. But in this scenario it would be a 30.05 violation, not 30.06, since there is no "carrying" involved.

I asked for clarification because you opined that a handgun in the trunk is "carrying". I concede that it is a violation of 30.05 (based on any "no guns" sign, including 30.06). But I still have a certain amount of doubt, based on whether a 30.06 sign means "no guns", or "no concealed carry (including CHLs".

I wouldn't want to push the issue, though.

As CHL holders, we want the protection of our licenses to be as broad as possible. I would never concede that a handgun in the trunk is not covered by my CHL.

Remember, non-CHL defendants attempting to argue they were not "carrying" to avoid a conviction under 46.02 are in a markedly different position than a CHL wanting the broadest protection possible.
Okay, I admit you've got me stumped here, but I'm willing to listen to your reasoning. How is any handgun that you're not "carrying" affected by having, or not having, a CHL? (Other than the NICS bye, of course.)

If a CHL is arrested for DUI, but he had conscientiously secured his handgun in the trunk before drinking, would you still argue that it is "covered" by his CHL? In this case, it would be a detriment, not a protection.

I'm enjoying this forum for the different points of view than are found elsewhere. Thanks!

Kevin

Kevin:
Wow, you're quick on the response. I deleted my post because I wanted to do some research on the scope of "on or about the person," but you got your response done first!

I know there was a 1970's era case that held at a minimum, a gun anywhere in the passenger compartment of a vehicle was "on or about the person" and I want to research that further.

I probably should have referenced only 30.05 in my first response, until I had the chance to look this up.

As to wanting the scope of the CHL protection to be as broad as possible, the first thing that comes to mind is the 30.05 issue. An example would be a company posting a generic "no guns" sign at the parking lot entrance. I can drive past the sign with the gun on my hip and I'm perfectly legal, because no 30.06 sign had been posted. However, if for some reason I wanted to leave my pistol in the trunk, I'll be in violation of 30.05, unless I am "carrying" pursuant to my CHL. I don't want to get caught in a "where was the gun at any given time" argument with a Ronnie Earl type DA.

You're doing a great job of requiring me to go back to the books!

Regards,
Chas.

one eyed fatman · Post by **one eyed fatman** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:20 am

GrillKing wrote:one eyed fat man,

That's not my understanding of the law. If you pass a proper 30.06 sign while carrying under license, they don't have to ask you to leave. They can call police and you are subject to arrest. 30.06 OR verbal request (even w/o any signage) is cause to leave.

I plan to be conservative in my interpretation of the law and don't plan to make myself a test case!

Damned if I know if your right or not. I'm just going by what my CHL instructor told me. Also I talked to a local police officer and he told me if he caught me in a place of 30.06 he would just escort me out the door. But that's just him. Another officer might arrest you.

I think it's OK to be conservative in your interpretation of the law so long as you don't freak out on the law so much you start leaving your gun at the house. Laws arn't made for you to understand, they are made so people can go to court and argue about them.

As far as not making yourself a test case, cool. Of course plans don't always work out the way you want them too.