TexasCHLforum.com

I work in a hospital. This hospital has a unit that is designated as a Skilled Nursing Unit. For this unit to have that designation, Texas Administrative Code requires that As such, we have a compliant 30.06 sign in the hallway leading to that unit.

I had a conversation with the head of security today. His opinion is that, since this unit is licensed separately by the state, and is technically separate from the hospital, the sign only covers that unit, and the rest of the hospital would not be covered.
It sounds plausible, but I'm no lawyer. Thoughts?

If its in the same building, I think the whole building would become off limits. A hospital I used to work in had a SNU. It was on the fourth floor. It was the only thing on that entire floor. I suppose if the sign were only on that floor in that circumstance the rest of the facility might be okay, but I'm not sure about that.

I hope Mr Cotton weighs in on this....

KC5AV wrote:As such, we have a compliant 30.06 sign in the hallway leading to that unit.

IANAL but based on where the sign is located AND the discussion with the head of security it would seem that is how the 30.06 would be enforced. I know there have been other examples discussed here where an entire government building was not signed but a floor or portion of a building was due to the presence of a court or meeting. This always seemed more reasonable to me than the blanket signing of a building.

Have the head of security write you a letter (or write it for him to sign) stating that you can carry in "his" building, except for the SNU.

What hospital are you talking about? Good shepherd, Regional?

nightmare69 wrote:What hospital are you talking about? Good shepherd, Regional?

as far as Good Shepard goes, other than the still "not totally compliant" 30.06 notice on the front door (white paint, small letters, clear glass, moving door), the South entrances are posted in large, compliant 30.06 signs. Up until last year when the new signage went up on the South entrances, I never worried about carry at GS (frequent flyer miles there over the last 15 years with aging parents).

JD

I'm still of the mindset that you don't go past a 30.06 sign. That doesn't mean that I go thru B entrance because A entrance is posted. What it does mean is if none of the entrances or the lobbies of the building are posted, I can walk on thru without going past a 30.06 sign.
I would not have an issue carrying in the OPs situation.

jmra wrote:I'm still of the mindset that you don't go past a 30.06 sign. That doesn't mean that I go thru B entrance because A entrance is posted. What it does mean is if none of the entrances or the lobbies of the building are posted, I can walk on thru without going past a 30.06 sign.
I would not have an issue carrying in the OPs situation.

lol...I have NO issue carrying ANYWHERE...question is, who WILL have issue with it?

You may want to talk to your facility administration about the sign as well. In talks with our security folks at my place of employment they are thinking of making some exceptions to policy for certain CHL people who work there to allow them to carry. Nothing in stone right now but more discussion. Some of our contract security people are carrying and some of the security officers for the hospital may get the privilege. Our active shooter training was a joke IMO. They had us practice throwing a stapler at a CPR mannequin. Being that I cover two different hospitals (one more than the other) I can say that I know just about every closet and our technical closets that only our card access allows us in (no one else but IT).

RogueUSMC wrote:

jmra wrote:I'm still of the mindset that you don't go past a 30.06 sign. That doesn't mean that I go thru B entrance because A entrance is posted. What it does mean is if none of the entrances or the lobbies of the building are posted, I can walk on thru without going past a 30.06 sign.
I would not have an issue carrying in the OPs situation.

lol...I have NO issue carrying ANYWHERE...question is, who WILL have issue with it?

"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." - Ayn Rand

KC5AV wrote:I work in a hospital. This hospital has a unit that is designated as a Skilled Nursing Unit. For this unit to have that designation, Texas Administrative Code requires that

Code: Select all

(12) at each entrance to the facility, a sign that states that a person may not enter the premises with a concealed handgun and that complies with Government Code §411.204;

As such, we have a compliant 30.06 sign in the hallway leading to that unit.

I had a conversation with the head of security today. His opinion is that, since this unit is licensed separately by the state, and is technically separate from the hospital, the sign only covers that unit, and the rest of the hospital would not be covered.
It sounds plausible, but I'm no lawyer. Thoughts?

Has anyone pointed out to the security chief that the 30.06 sign is not compliant with 411.204? The proper sign is one that has no legal meaning any longer. GC 411.201 requires the red 51 sign that TABC uses but without the 51 on it and that sign has had no legal consequence since 30.06 was implements and 46.035 modified with subsection (i).

As for the 30.06 sign only applying to the wing, I think it is an interesting question, legally. I usually agree that it only applies to the part of the property behind the sign but I was just re-reading the law for this. The law states that the sign must be posted on the property and conspicuously visible to the public. It does not say that it must be at the entrance. So a sign posted anywhere could apply to the whole property. But, it doesn't make sense that the sign could apply to parts of the property you have to be on to get to see the sign. Then there is the question of if a sign on the inside for part of a building is conspicuous to the public. I think a court would agree with the sign only applying to the parts of the property behind the sign but I could see where a really good lawyer witht he right case could say it only applies to the whole property and is not valid if it is not visible to the public form the outside of the property.

In a case like this, I would go with the security chief's word. He is the one who will make the decision on enforcing it. I would just ask one or two of the officer's who are actually working if they have been told the same thing or make a decision on whether I would trust the chief to testify in court. Asking for the written documentation is asking for trouble by forcing it to be noted.

srothstein wrote: Has anyone pointed out to the security chief that the 30.06 sign is not compliant with 411.204? The proper sign is one that has no legal meaning any longer. GC 411.204 requires the red 51 sign that TABC uses but without the 51 on it and that sign has had no legal consequence since 30.06 was implements and 46.035 modified with subsection (i).

This is an interesting exercise in mental gymnastics. It appears there's a loophole and that by following the guidelines they cannot enforce the law as intended, however, I'm not interested in being a test case.

BTW, fixed the mis-typed code reference.

Larry