30.06 Sign at different entrance

[txinvestigator]

A friend who works across the street from that place just sent me a phone pic of the sign they have posted. On a big (well over 1", contrasting lettering) sign says the following in English and Spanish:

Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Article 4413 (29ee) Revised Statutes (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun.

No problem for CHL's here, carry all you want.

TI will be along shortly to tell you why.

be my guest.

 

[txinvestigator]

When a business asks me to leave my rights in the parking lot they can go pound sand. Perhaps Texas has a problem with rampaging CHL holders, but I haven't heard about it. I don't need many excuses to stay out of a box store, this would be good enough for me.

Then I suggest you leave this website, as the owners and moderators have a code of conduct, and if you write something outside of that they can will edit or delete your posts.

 

[codygjohnson]

be my guest.

PC§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.

(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”


The posted sign might as well read: “Don’t bring a gun in here even if you have a CHL.” It doesn’t mean anything to a CHL holder. I know that they intended to keep me out, but it doesn’t mean anything to me.

 

[Texas42]

When a business asks me to leave my rights in the parking lot they can go pound sand. Perhaps Texas has a problem with rampaging CHL holders, but I haven't heard about it. I don't need many excuses to stay out of a box store, this would be good enough for me.

I don't have a "right" to carry a gun or do what I want on your property, and vice versa.

It has nothing to do with CHLers causing proplems.

If you undermine the rights of others (and yes, private property is a right) then you undermine all the other rights that we have.

 

[texas_teacher]

I don't have a "right" to carry a gun or do what I want on your property, and vice versa.

It has nothing to do with CHLers causing proplems.

If you undermine the rights of others (and yes, private property is a right) then you undermine all the other rights that we have.

True but you have to ask yourself why do you not want legal law abiding citizens armed within your property... Think about this... You run some sort of business and someone comes in pantyhose on their head and a little five shot in hand... "GIVE ME THE DAMN MONEY!!!"... Now 30.06 outside you yourself are just staring down the end of a soiled underwear creator... Without the 30.06 in Texas with a good shop there's a pretty good chance a loyal customer might be considering his options... He doesn't have to shoot... But he does have the right to intervene... Posting a no guns sign on the door that isn't 30.06 compliant might be another route... The criminals won't abide by it but if someone is tried and convicted in there, other civil damages could be sought after just because they brought a weapon when you posted not too...

In a state like Texas (aside from malls) you might have to stop and ask yourself why would a place of business want to put up a 30.06 sign...

 

[Texas42]

It doesn't matter why. That is "my" own business. If I want to keep law abiding citizens off my property, then I have that right. I also would suffer the consequences.

I don't understand why other people would want to post a 30-06, but I am not all people. I don't understand people I generally agree with, much less those I have different phylosophies.

 

[Texas42]

True but you have to ask yourself why do you not want legal law abiding citizens armed within your property... Think about this... You run some sort of business and someone comes in pantyhose on their head and a little five shot in hand... "GIVE ME THE DAMN MONEY!!!"... Now 30.06 outside you yourself are just staring down the end of a soiled underwear creator... Without the 30.06 in Texas with a good shop there's a pretty good chance a loyal customer might be considering his options... He doesn't have to shoot... But he does have the right to intervene... Posting a no guns sign on the door that isn't 30.06 compliant might be another route... The criminals won't abide by it but if someone is tried and convicted in there, other civil damages could be sought after just because they brought a weapon when you posted not too...

In a state like Texas (aside from malls) you might have to stop and ask yourself why would a place of business want to put up a 30.06 sign...

First of all, being able to legally carry a handgun with you CHL and legally using deadly force to defend someone are two separete issues.

Second, I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. A non-30.06 compliant sign does not effect ANYTHING.

If you are legally carrying, then you are legally carrying. Whether you get sued or not depends on if you get no-billed or not. If are not no-billed, you will get sued. Welcome to 2009, time of the lawyers. (and as Tom Greshlen pointed out, if you have to use your weapon, civil action is problem #2. Problem #1 is being alive to deal with problem #2)

 

[txinvestigator]

If you are legally carrying, then you are legally carrying. Whether you get sued or not depends on if you get no-billed or not.

Umm, say what?

 

[Texas42]

Umm, say what?

correct me, I was under the impression that, in Texas, you use deadly force, the police investigate, and put you in front of a grand jury.

if they dismiss the charges, you cannot be sued.

That was my impression. Am I wrong?

 

[BT1911]

correct me, I was under the impression that, in Texas, you use deadly force, the police investigate, and put you in front of a grand jury.

if they dismiss the charges, you cannot be sued.

A lawyer will tell you otherwise. Pretty much to the effect of "Despite being cleared by a grand jury for the alleged criminal offense, the deceased's estate may choose to file a wrongful death suit against you in a civil action".

I'd suggest if you want the proper answer, call a law firm and stop listening to those on gun forums who play armchair attorney.

 

[txinvestigator]

correct me, I was under the impression that, in Texas, you use deadly force, the police investigate, and put you in front of a grand jury.

if they dismiss the charges, you cannot be sued.

That was my impression. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[Texas42]

darn

 

[texas_teacher]

Yes, you are wrong.

I was under the similar impression... now there are mitigating circumstances where deadly force can become a civil matter as well, but the new castle doctrine of your home and your car also protect the individual to any civil repercussions as well... I do believe...

 

[DirtyD]

While it does not remove the threat of civil lawsuit, it does provide a "defense to prosecution"

 

[txinvestigator]

I was under the similar impression... now there are mitigating circumstances where deadly force can become a civil matter as well, but the new castle doctrine of your home and your car also protect the individual to any civil repercussions as well... I do believe...

That is just not accurate.

The Castle Doctrine made ONE change to the civil laws, and it changed this;

In the civil practices and remedies code, chapter 83 in 2007, made it a defendant immune from civil liability from a death resulting in a "justified" use of force or deadly force as per chapter 9 of the penal code.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT


Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

The second word is the first clue. Who is a defendant in a tort? That would be a person who HAS BEEN SUED.

The civil court will decide if your use of force was justified. As you can see, the civil court is not bound by a decision by any other court. If the civil court determines that you were justified than you immune from LIABILITY.

No where does it state you cannot be sued, or that you are immune from SUIT.

A No bill by a grand jury does not mean your use of force was justified. It means there was not enough probable cause, in the Grand Juries belief, to try to for the offense.

Even an acquittal at trial does not mean you were justified. An acquittal at trial means the state did not prove that you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is not that high, it is only a preponderance of evidence.

In fact, chapter 9 of the penal code still tells you that you can be sued;

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

You can still be sued; regardless of the CRIMINAL outcome.

the new castle doctrine of your home and your car

The castle doctrine has 3 parts.

1. It added a presumption for reasonableness in the use of force or deadly force if the person unlawfully and with force entered your attempted to enter, or attempted to remove you unlawfully and with force from your occupied habitation, vehicle, place of business or employment.

2. Made it clear that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force from ANYPLACE you have a right to be

3. Made the changes to the civil code as I stated above.

 

[txinvestigator]

While it does not remove the threat of civil lawsuit, it does provide a "defense to prosecution"

The defense to prosecution applies to criminal prosecution.

 

[texas_teacher]

That is just not accurate.

The Castle Doctrine made ONE change to the civil laws, and it changed this;

In the civil practices and remedies code, chapter 83 in 2007, made it a defendant immune from civil liability from a death resulting in a "justified" use of force or deadly force as per chapter 9 of the penal code.

The second word is the first clue. Who is a defendant in a tort? That would be a person who HAS BEEN SUED.

The civil court will decide if your use of force was justified. As you can see, the civil court is not bound by a decision by any other court. If the civil court determines that you were justified than you immune from LIABILITY.

No where does it state you cannot be sued, or that you are immune from SUIT.

A No bill by a grand jury does not mean your use of force was justified. It means there was not enough probable cause, in the Grand Juries belief, to try to for the offense.

Even an acquittal at trial does not mean you were justified. An acquittal at trial means the state did not prove that you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil court, the burden of proof is not that high, it is only a preponderance of evidence.

In fact, chapter 9 of the penal code still tells you that you can be sued;

You can still be sued; regardless of the CRIMINAL outcome.


The castle doctrine has 3 parts.

1. It added a presumption for reasonableness in the use of force or deadly force if the person unlawfully and with force entered your attempted to enter, or attempted to remove you unlawfully and with force from your occupied habitation, vehicle, place of business or employment.

2. Made it clear that there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force from ANYPLACE you have a right to be

3. Made the changes to the civil code as I stated above.

Thank you Thank you... This is good information to all that has been passed on to us after some of us have either been passed on misinformation...

 

[ZX9RCAM]

There was this famous ex-football player that was accused of killing his wife & he was found "not guilty" & yet his wife's family was able to win a civil suit against him.

 

[MadMo44Mag]

When a company hangs a sign out in defiance of our constitution it leads me to believe they are anti-American and any profits they gain as a result of my patronage will be beneficial to anti-American socialists. I might as well send Pelosi a check and skip the middleman. I would think signs like that are a "Help Wanted" invitation to criminals. The sign should say:
Wanted: Armed Robber to pilfer stores and patrons. Safe work environment, short hours. Personal Protective equipment not required. Apply at cash register.

I think I see what you’re saying here Hawg.
When your right to protect yourself is voided at the door in your opinion it's anti-American. I can understand this sentiment especially in this day and age.
I try and avoid stores that post 30-06 whenever I can. I too feel that a True American store owner would never consider posting an anti-gun sign and would welcome shoppers with a CHL as this not only allows his patrons peace of mind but also helps provide his store with a form of security.
I myself do not like leaving my safety or life in the hands of another that I do not know and trust but the law of the land as it pertains to private property is fair and valid IMO.

These store owners IMO live in fear of what they do not understand or what the media feeds them. They have that right as the store is privet property; sadly they suffer at many levels because of this ignorance.
With that said; for those of us that share that sentiment we will spend our monies elsewhere!!!

 

[Texas42]

Thank you Thank you... This is good information to all that has been passed on to us after some of us have either been passed on misinformation...

+1,

Thanks a lot.