TexasCHLforum.com

In another thread, someone mentioned proprietors saying they would allow him to carry in their establishment even though it was properly posted with 30.06 signage.

PC §30.06. wrote:PC §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.

The way I read this, if one has "effective consent", it does not matter that other notice (e.g., the sign) was given. Do you read this the same way?

If so, I would presume that one would want to get this "effective consent" from the establishment in writing just to avoid any problems.

What do you think?

GlockenHammer wrote:In another thread, someone mentioned proprietors saying they would allow him to carry in their establishment even though it was properly posted with 30.06 signage.

PC §30.06. wrote:PC §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.

The way I read this, if one has "effective consent", it does not matter that other notice (e.g., the sign) was given. Do you read this the same way?

If so, I would presume that one would want to get this "effective consent" from the establishment in writing just to avoid any problems.

What do you think?

Yes, if you have consent to enter, then the 30.06 sign means nothing. Gun shows are a good example of this procedure. If it's at some place other than a gun show, then it would be a good idea to have "permission" in writing.

Chas.

How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

carlson1 wrote:How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

I would carry, but his word is as good as the paper its written on.

If there were reason for dispute. What is the proof?

carlson1 wrote:How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

Yes. A proper 30.06 sign means "keep out," but when the owner or someone in apparent authority says you can come in, he/she just voided the sign.

Chas.

Liberty wrote:If there were reason for dispute. What is the proof?

That's absolutely right. The law is the law, as the old saying goes, but proving the facts that control application of the law is why I'm in business.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:If there were reason for dispute. What is the proof?

That's absolutely right. The law is the law, as the old saying goes, but proving the facts that control application of the law is why I'm in business.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

carlson1 wrote:How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

Yes. A proper 30.06 sign means "keep out," but when the owner or someone in apparent authority says you can come in, he/she just voided the sign.

Chas.

Hmmm. I am curious did they just void the sign for that individual only or for everyone else also. Seems that a case could be made for discrimination based on allowing some people to carry while refusing others the same right because of the sign posting.

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

carlson1 wrote:How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

Yes. A proper 30.06 sign means "keep out," but when the owner or someone in apparent authority says you can come in, he/she just voided the sign.

Chas.

Hmmm. I am curious did they just void the sign for that individual only or for everyone else also. Seems that a case could be made for discrimination based on allowing some people to carry while refusing others the same right because of the sign posting.

The sign is voided only for the individuals the owner allows to carry on their premises. An owner can discriminate based on any factor that does not make a person a member of a protected class. The common factors are race, religion, sex, etc. Status as a CHL isn't a protected class, so an owner can allow and bar anyone they choose.

An interesting case study would be a store allowing all Caucasian CHL's to carry, but no one else. I'm not sure if this would be actionable or not. The store owner wouldn't be barring entry based on race or color, but this certainly would be a factor in deciding who can come into the store with a gun. Another good law school exam question.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

carlson1 wrote:How does this work if the one who is control or owns the property says, "it is ok to open carry here?" Does the same apply?

Yes. A proper 30.06 sign means "keep out," but when the owner or someone in apparent authority says you can come in, he/she just voided the sign.

Chas.

Hmmm. I am curious did they just void the sign for that individual only or for everyone else also. Seems that a case could be made for discrimination based on allowing some people to carry while refusing others the same right because of the sign posting.

The sign is voided only for the individuals the owner allows to carry on their premises. An owner can discriminate based on any factor that does not make a person a member of a protected class. The common factors are race, religion, sex, etc. Status as a CHL isn't a protected class, so an owner can allow and bar anyone they choose.

An interesting case study would be a store allowing all Caucasian CHL's to carry, but no one else. I'm not sure if this would be actionable or not. The store owner wouldn't be barring entry based on race or color, but this certainly would be a factor in deciding who can come into the store with a gun. Another good law school exam question.

Chas.

Thanks for the answer, I was just curious. I tend to forget about the protected class thing but then again IANAL.

Both of my Assistant Pastors work at the Church often through the week. It is my understanding they must stay CONCEALED and I being Pastor/President (incorporated) I can carry open. I carry open a lot when I am there by myself and sometimes people walk in off of the street and the same with them. Can the Assistant Pastors or anyone for that matter OPEN CARRY on property with a letter given from me?

carlson1 wrote:Both of my Assistant Pastors work at the Church often through the week. It is my understanding they must stay CONCEALED and I being Pastor/President (incorporated) I can carry open. I carry open a lot when I am there by myself and sometimes people walk in off of the street and the same with them. Can the Assistant Pastors or anyone for that matter OPEN CARRY on property with a letter given from me?

I don't think the Asst. Pastors can carry openly, unless they are in control of the church premises. If any Asst. Pastor is there when you are not, and if he has authority to "control" the premises, then I think open carry is permitted. If you are present, then you clearly have control of the premises and Asst. Pastors do not.

If TPC §46.02 prohibits you from carrying a handgun, then you must rely upon the authority granted by your CHL which means it must be concealed.

Chas.

Here is the new law:

TPC §46.02 wrote: (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or . . .

Thanks I THINK I have it.
I can they can't?

carlson1 wrote:Thanks I THINK I have it.
I can they can't?

Well, they could, if you'd take the steps to make them eligible under PC 46.02(b)(8):
holds an alcoholic beverage permit or license or is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit or license if the person is supervising the operation of the permitted or licensed premises.

Might improve attendance.