Can someone explain the 30.06 posting...

[TexasRedneck]

2) A CHL holder cannot carry inside of a building marked with a proper 30.06 sign. Can't carry outside the building either.

Ummmm....could you quote me the section that covers that claim, please???

 

[Bithabus]

Ummmm....could you quote me the section that covers that claim, please???

I think he means if you don't have a CHL

 

[TexasRedneck]

I think he means if you don't have a CHL

Thought so too, at first - then went back and read it. He distinctly states that it applies to a CHL....

 

[Renegade]

Well I am presuming they own the property around the building too, like most places that have their own parking lot.

Funny, I had this discussion on GlockTalk last week and they didn't know about it either. Here is 30.06:

Sec. 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.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

I can't walk up to the door, see the sign & then say, sit on a bench on the sidewalk for a little while?

What I have highlighted in BLUE is why you cannot remain, if the bench is on their property.

Ummmm....could you quote me the section that covers that claim, please???

Thus what I highlighted in RED is why you cannot carry either in the building or outside the building. 30.06 applies to property, not premises. This seems to be a common mistake.

I have a pasture, there are no buildings on it. I have it fenced, so that 30.05 notice. If I put up a valid 30.06 sign, you cannot CHL on it either. It does not matter whether it has buildings on it or not, the 30.05 & 30.06 are about criminal trespass on property, not inside buildings.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Hmmm...okay - now, where in the bill did they define the terms used? Because under THAT definition, it would extend to the parking lots as well - which have already been held to be exempt from 30-06.

 

[Bithabus]

If they own the surrounding property then of course you are correct. A bench on the sidewalk, probably is not owned by the business.

 

[Bithabus]

Hmmm...okay - now, where in the bill did they define the terms used? Because under THAT definition, it would extend to the parking lots as well - which have already been held to be exempt from 30-06.

Parking lots are not exempt. Inside your vehicle, however, you are not carrying on the authority of your CHL.

 

[Renegade]

Hmmm...okay - now, where in the bill did they define the terms used? Because under THAT definition, it would extend to the parking lots as well - which have already been held to be exempt from 30-06.

Parking lots are special as bithabus points out above. I was talking about CHLing outside your vehicle on their 30.06 marked property.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Ummm....okay - but I've got to say I'd like to know their definitions. Because the devil's usually in the details - as I've always been given to understand it, they can restrict the building, but not the common/public areas, because they're not under their direct control.

 

[Bithabus]

Ummm....okay - but I've got to say I'd like to know their definitions. Because the devil's usually in the details - as I've always been given to understand it, they can restrict the building, but not the common/public areas, because they're not under their direct control.

"Property" is not defined in 30.06. Elsewhere when only buildings are intended to be restricted areas the term "premises" is used, and defined in the section.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Okay then - guess I'm dense. A mall decides that they want to be a "gun free zone". Are you telling me that they can post the ENTIRE PREMISES as such? To include parking lot (outside of POV's), walkways, sidewalks, etc. that are outside of the building itself? How would they provide effective signage?

 

[Bithabus]

Okay then - guess I'm dense. A mall decides that they want to be a "gun free zone". Are you telling me that they can post the ENTIRE PREMISES as such? To include parking lot (outside of POV's), walkways, sidewalks, etc. that are outside of the building itself? How would they provide effective signage?

If the mall and parking area is privately owned then yeah they could do that. To be effective they would need to post a sign at every possible entrance to the parking area, I would think. Otherwise people would have to go back to their vehicle upon viewing a sign and might be inclined to just ignore it. I would choose to shop at another mall.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Okay then - guess I'm dense. A mall decides that they want to be a "gun free zone". Are you telling me that they can post the ENTIRE PREMISES as such? To include parking lot (outside of POV's), walkways, sidewalks, etc. that are outside of the building itself? How would they provide effective signage?

Grapevine Mills Mall in Grapevine, TX claims that and the parking lot is NOT to my knowledge posted.

 

[txinvestigator]

A private property owner can prohibit a CHL holder from carrying on the property. Property is not limited to buildings. If he properly posts his parking lots then carry under a CHL is unlawful on the parking lots. Of course car carry is not carry under a CHL so it is not effected by 30.06.

Common sense tells me if the posting is at the entrance to a building or inside the building, the owner does not intend to restrict carry outside of the building.

I don't think we need to make this harder than it is.

 

[San Antone RR]

Of course car carry is not carry under a CHL so it is not effected by 30.06.

MPA overrides 30.06?

 

[Bithabus]

MPA overrides 30.06?

30.06 only applies to people carrying on authority of a CHL

 

[txinvestigator]

MPA overrides 30.06?

Generally laws don't override other laws, they just apply differently or are from different jurisdictions. As Bith points out; when I am carrying in my car I am not carrying under the authority of my CHL. 30.06 is only directed at those carrying under a CHL. If the parking lot is posted, I can drive in, but cannot carry outside of my car.

 

[San Antone RR]

30.06 only applies to people carrying on authority of a CHL

Generally laws don't override other laws, they just apply differently or are from different jurisdictions. As Bith points out; when I am carrying in my car I am not carrying under the authority of my CHL. 30.06 is only directed at those carrying under a CHL. If the parking lot is posted, I can drive in, but cannot carry outside of my car.

Thanks guys.

 

[jamesmrj]

Sorry to back track guys, but I have a question as to what constitutes a valid 30.06 notice. I know:

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

(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

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."

My question is about "language". I came across what I initially thought a valid posting. Upon closer review, I noticed that some of the wording was not quite right (the part in blue above referred to "Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statues"). Upon discussing it with a coworker (a fellow CHL) he felt it was probably valid. Does "language" mean that the wording must be exact, and if so, does anyone know where to find the definition? I looked but could not find it. I appreciate yall's thoughts.

 

[Renegade]

Sorry to back track guys, but I have a question as to what constitutes a valid 30.06 notice. I know:



and



My question is about "language". I came across what I initially thought a valid posting. Upon closer review, I noticed that some of the wording was not quite right (the part in blue above referred to "Article 4413(29ee), Revised Statues"). Upon discussing it with a coworker (a fellow CHL) he felt it was probably valid. Does "language" mean that the wording must be exact, and if so, does anyone know where to find the definition? I looked but could not find it. I appreciate yall's thoughts.

That is an old sign. the Statutes were Re-written/Re-organized/Re-annotated or whatever they call it and the CHL law is now in the Subchapter H, Chapter 411 section of the Govt. Code. Thus everyone had to update their signs.

The correct wording is found in Chapter 30 of the Penal Code...

"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"

+ Spanish translation.