30.06 and 30.07 sign postings

[ZX9RCAM]

The full text is:

"(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property."

So that is pretty specific, especially since many places the parking lot is part of the property.

Then what is the answer to my question about the sign being in the foyer, and being visible after the door is opened?

 

[Renegade]

Then what is the answer to my question about the sign being in the foyer, and being visible after the door is opened?

Is the foyer at the entrance to the property?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is the foyer at the entrance to the property?

Well, typically that is where it's located, just inside the entrance.

 

[Renegade]

Well, typically that is where it's located, just inside the entrance.

Sounds legit then.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Sounds legit then.

Thank you, that was my thoughts as well.

 

[easy rider]

You are slacking off.

The full text is:

"(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property."

So that is pretty specific, especially since many places the parking lot is part of the property.

I know the "parking lot law" applies mainly to employees, but wouldn't the same apply to patrons of a business? Not talking about government property.

 

[DoubleDuty]

No

 

[Bithabus]

I know the "parking lot law" applies mainly to employees, but wouldn't the same apply to patrons of a business? Not talking about government property.

Prohibition of carry in bars applies only inside buildings

 

[txinvestigator]

You done good, doing what you did.
If you hadn't disarmed (or just left the joint) you'da been subject to what TXI suggested in post #14.

I agree he did what he should have. However, in my previous I was addressing the topic of this thread, 30.06 and 30.07

In the 51% law, it is unlawful to carry in a 51% place at all. The lack of a sign is a defense to prosecution. That means you can be arrested for carrying where there is no sign, and them in court you have a defense as to why you should be not guilty. Similar but different than the trespass situation.

 

[txinvestigator]

You are slacking off.

The full text is:

"(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property."

So that is pretty specific, especially since many places the parking lot is part of the property.

I mentioned that, it is only stated in 30.07. You must have missed it in my post.

 

[txinvestigator]

I know the "parking lot law" applies mainly to employees, but wouldn't the same apply to patrons of a business? Not talking about government property.

The parking lot law applies to employers, and generally prevents them from having rules that prohibit their employees from having guns in their cars on employer property. There are exceptions

My company is a contractor for a defense contractor, Company A. Company A does not meet any of those exceptions at most of their facilities. Even though the parking lots are access controlled, they cannot legally have a policy prohibiting firearms in employee vehicles. I have a secret clearance and higher access to most facilities than many of their employees, but as a contractor and not an employee they lawfully prohibit my company employees (which includes me) from having firearms on their property.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I agree he did what he should have. However, in my previous I was addressing the topic of this thread, 30.06 and 30.07

In the 51% law, it is unlawful to carry in a 51% place at all. The lack of a sign is a defense to prosecution. That means you can be arrested for carrying where there is no sign, and them in court you have a defense as to why you should be not guilty. Similar but different than the trespass situation.

Thank you sir, this is what I was looking for.
I didn't realize that a 51% area was even stricter than a "posted" area.

 

[easy rider]

The parking lot law applies to employers, and generally prevents them from having rules that prohibit their employees from having guns in their cars on employer property. There are exceptions

My company is a contractor for a defense contractor, Company A. Company A does not meet any of those exceptions at most of their facilities. Even though the parking lots are access controlled, they cannot legally have a policy prohibiting firearms in employee vehicles. I have a secret clearance and higher access to most facilities than many of their employees, but as a contractor and not an employee they lawfully prohibit my company employees (which includes me) from having firearms on their property.

Thanks. But I was trying to find more information as far as public access parking (i.e. restaurant) and most of what I can find only pertains to employee, employer rules. Although I didn't spend a great deal of time, I couldn't find one way or another on the issue.

 

[bfm0072]

Looks as if they have it posted in the entrance somewhere, it is up to someone’s interpretation of violated.
Thanks for the reply’s.

 

[Bithabus]

Thanks. But I was trying to find more information as far as public access parking (i.e. restaurant) and most of what I can find only pertains to employee, employer rules. Although I didn't spend a great deal of time, I couldn't find one way or another on the issue.

A 30.06 sign does not apply to you inside your vehicle. And if the restaurant is a 51% location the law against carry only applies inside the building. Does this answer your question?

 

[txinvestigator]

A 30.06 sign does not apply to you inside your vehicle.

Can you explain why?

 

[Charlie]

Can you explain why?

Because .............. YOU ARE INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE!

 

[Fosty 2.0]

I have a secret clearance

I'm telling everybody!

 

[Charlie]

Not a secret anymore .............

 

[Bithabus]

Can you explain why?

Because if you are carrying a concealed handgun inside your vehicle you are not carrying "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code"

But I think you know that ;-)