TexasCHLforum.com

My landlord is preparing to install the 30.07 at the large office building I work at.

They are unhappy with the appearance of the sign they purchased.

I mentioned it would look better without the Red circle and gun with a red line crossing over it part. They replied that that picture was required by law.

I disagreed, was I right?

Will I be able to take my jacket off and open carry once inside my place of work, if my employer doesn't mind. (They don't) ?

I do not believe that the red circle and X through the gun is required. The requirement is spelled out specifically, and there's not a mention of the picture.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.30.htm

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; 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 at each entrance to the property.

No mention of a gunbuster picture...

If the landlord (building owner) says no openly carried weapons, and your employer is a tenant of the building, I believe that the 30.07 would still apply since the company renting the space is not the owner. Someone please confirm/correct.

No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

that all depends on a lot of thing, because the property owner may not actually control the property, so that blanket statement BE made needs to be taken with a good measure of salt

JP171 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

that all depends on a lot of thing, because the property owner may not actually control the property, so that blanket statement BE made needs to be taken with a good measure of salt

OK, you've got my curiosity up. Under what circumstances would a property owner not control their own property?

baldeagle wrote:

JP171 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

that all depends on a lot of thing, because the property owner may not actually control the property, so that blanket statement BE made needs to be taken with a good measure of salt

OK, you've got my curiosity up. Under what circumstances would a property owner not control their own property?

When they've contractually given control to a lessee?

ScottDLS wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JP171 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

that all depends on a lot of thing, because the property owner may not actually control the property, so that blanket statement BE made needs to be taken with a good measure of salt

OK, you've got my curiosity up. Under what circumstances would a property owner not control their own property?

When they've contractually given control to a lessee?

In that case they don't release control. They delegate it. If the lessee doesn't behave, I guarantee you that the property owner will exercise his control again.

baldeagle wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JP171 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

that all depends on a lot of thing, because the property owner may not actually control the property, so that blanket statement BE made needs to be taken with a good measure of salt

OK, you've got my curiosity up. Under what circumstances would a property owner not control their own property?

When they've contractually given control to a lessee?

In that case they don't release control. They delegate it. If the lessee doesn't behave, I guarantee you that the property owner will exercise his control again.

when someone leases a store/building/property the owner looses many rights for the duration of a lease, such as who is allowed to enter, who can work there, how the business is run what rules are in place in the leased space. the owner is not allowed to enter a business owned by another without notice and many times does not even have a key to enter with, in place of that the leaser take may of the responsibility for the property, most of the time things like plumbing, air conditioning, electrical. there is a lot more to commercial leases that what you would believe, and many of the rights of the owner are transferred to the leaser for the duration of the lease, if the owner or the leaser violate the terms of the lease then it can and will be broken rather quickly

This has been mentioned before, mostly in a mall type center, but what if the tenant has his business entrance directly to the outside without having to go through the common areas? Wouldn't he, at that point have/be in control of his own space?

To the original question, since PC 30.07 only applies to licensed carry of a handgun, it cannot apply to open carry of long guns, so wouldn't the gun-buster logo also serve as notice that open carry of any firearm is prohibited?

baldeagle wrote:No, the gunbuster sign is not required and yes, the landlord controls the property.

It would probably be prudent to refer to the actual lease in each case, as the terms can vary widely on this and other points.

I do not recall ever seeing an express term about "control" of the leased premises. The leases owned by the investment company I ran for more than 20 years, long term triple net leases to single commercial tenants, were fairly passive for the landlord. These are essentially financing arrangements in effect, if not in form. Others, the office building owned by a sister company, with a bank as anchor for example, was less so, in that the landlord provided maintenance and janitorial services to the other tenants. The small bank pretty much did as they pleased, and if I had a problem, they would claim it was required by banking regulations.

"Quiet enjoyment" has a great many ramifications, in the absence of an express term dealing with the issue.

I doubt these are the extremes.

It is not required. Nor is any other syllable beyond what the statute requires.

For that matter, besides English and Spanish, the sign may include the language in Russian, Chinese and any other language you wish. All of which is meaningless to the fulfillment of the statute.

tex

oohrah wrote:To the original question, since PC 30.07 only applies to licensed carry of a handgun, it cannot apply to open carry of long guns, so wouldn't the gun-buster logo also serve as notice that open carry of any firearm is prohibited?

Depends. If it's on a 30.07 sign, then a gunbuster logo is probably a picture of a handgun. So it could be argued that the sign only applies to handguns, not rifles.

CleverNickname wrote:

oohrah wrote:To the original question, since PC 30.07 only applies to licensed carry of a handgun, it cannot apply to open carry of long guns, so wouldn't the gun-buster logo also serve as notice that open carry of any firearm is prohibited?

Depends. If it's on a 30.07 sign, then a gunbuster logo is probably a picture of a handgun. So it could be argued that the sign only applies to handguns, not rifles.

More specifically, if the silhouette of a handgun is a Beretta... then I take that to mean "No Berettas". Well, I carry a Glock, so that does not apply to me. Same thing if it is a 1911 or a revolver.

philip964 wrote:My landlord is preparing to install the 30.07 at the large office building I work at.

They are unhappy with the appearance of the sign they purchased.

I mentioned it would look better without the Red circle and gun with a red line crossing over it part. They replied that that picture was required by law.

I disagreed, was I right?

Will I be able to take my jacket off and open carry once inside my place of work, if my employer doesn't mind. (They don't) ?

My landlord is preparing to install the 30.07 at the large office building I work at.

Ok.

They are unhappy with the appearance of the sign they purchased.

Ok.

I mentioned it would look better without the Red circle and gun with a red line crossing over it part.

In your opinion.

They replied that that picture was required by law.

This is factually statutorily incorrect as per Texas PC 30.06c3

(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 license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing 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.

AND as per Texas PC 30.07c3

(3) “Written communication” means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly”; 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 at each entrance to the property.

I disagreed, was I right?

Yes.

Will I be able to take my jacket off and open carry once inside my place of work...

Taking just this part of your question...

No. The proper posting of a compliant 30.07 sign stops you from carrying with your handgun intentionally displayed in whole or in part. The 30.07 sign, IN AND OF ITSELF, does not prevent you from carrying concealed. So, notwithstanding any other notification or prohibition, you would be legal up to the point you removed your jacket and intentionally displayed your handgun.

...if my employer doesn't mind. (They don't)

Taking the second part of your question...

How do you know "they don't"? The 30.07 prohibition requires a lack of "effective consent" as well as proper notification. Having your employer's direct consent or his effective consent would allow you to carry at work (notwithstanding any other firearm prohibition). If your employer has given his direct consent then there is no 30.07 prohibition. If your employer has given you his effective consent then there is no 30.07 prohibition (again, notwithstanding any other firearm prohibition).

Ask yourself this...Did he give you his direct consent? If no...Do you have his effective consent (knowledgeable acquiescence, in other words, he knows you are doing it and he allows the behavior to continue)? If so, how do you know he knows and is acquiescing. If, with any of these questions, you do not have some tangible proof to his consent or effective consent you are placing yourself in a position of your word against his.

There are two issues here. The 30.07 notification and its relationship with you as a simple citizen and, additionally, your relationship as an employee to your employer. Your employer has rights to control his business that do not require the use of a sign.

So, if there is a 30.07 sign you as a citizen are prohibited from entering the business with open carry, period. As an employer, that would be all he needed to do to stop you as his employee from entering the business. He could also choose to not post a sign and let every citizen open carry but at the same time prohibit you as his employee from carrying as per Texas LC 52.061b...

(b) Section 52.061 does not prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a license to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, or who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, from possessing a firearm the employee is otherwise authorized by law to possess on the premises of the employer’s business. In this subsection, “premises” has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f)(3), Penal Code.

In short, the employer/employee relationship allows the employer to restrict his employees...or not.

If there is a 30.07 sign posted there is only one way you can carry openly in the business...that is, you must have his consent or effective consent (which effectively voids the 30.07 notice TO YOU).

Do you have his consent or effective consent? Can you prove it? Have you covered yourself legally in case someone charges you?

These are the direct answers to your OP questions.

tex