CHL Bogusness.

[APatriot]

Where was this sign? I was there in October last year and I didn't notice one.

It was near the Hats Off sign. It was not a 30.06 so it does not apply to CHL holders.

 

[TexasRedneck]

And I suppose you would have stood around and let some goon talk about your mother???? I already stated I failed the attitude test, my original response to TXI

Sorry - wasn't meanin' ta bust on ya. But yeah - I'd have let him have his say, because I'd also know that the complaint I'd be filin' on his butt would be worse. Ya ain't gonna beat the guy on the street when he wears a badge - but you WILL have an opportunity to straighten things out if ya keep your cool.

 

[txinvestigator]

Walking around Austin with a 20 inch tall green mohawk got his attention, him asking if my mother knew I walked around in public looking like I did pissed me off and my response to the question got me arrested for PI. { My response was " would you like to see the pictures your wife and mother took of the fin between their legs?}

OUCH! Hard learned lesson. Although I would never pop off to a cop, I have to admit I got a chuckle out of that.

 

[Hoji]

OUCH! Hard learned lesson. Although I would never pop off to a cop, I have to admit I got a chuckle out of that.

Oh, I had a pretty good idea of what the end result would be, I just did not think you could spend the night in jail for PI without at least a breathylizer to back up the allegation of drunkeness.

And I am not known for backing down from bullies, badge or not.

 

[jordanmills]

I believe an instructor said it. I helped out a guy who is a CHL instructor by running his range qual for him once. He has a bum leg and has difficulty doing it. I actually heard him tell student that 30.06 did not apply unless you were given VERBAL notice. He also told them that it is illegal to consume any amount of alcohol and carry.

I asked him about that at a break, and he just argued with me. I never assisted him again.

That's pretty much what my instructor taught too... His point was that they can't prove that you saw the 30.06 sign. I get the point, but I still wouldn't carry past one.

 

[mrseatle]

I agree, CHL is Bogus. what ever happened to "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"? I call an unfair tax and all these complicated rules an infringement... If you have a CHL, you are part of the problem.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I agree, CHL is Bogus. what ever happened to "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"? I call an unfair tax and all these complicated rules an infringement... If you have a CHL, you are part of the problem.

Ummmm....dude - it's called obeying the law. I prefer to obey the law and work to change those laws I don't agree with, just as I did to repeal the m/c helmet law.....yet I always wear a helmet.

 

[txinvestigator]

That's pretty much what my instructor taught too... His point was that they can't prove that you saw the 30.06 sign. I get the point, but I still wouldn't carry past one.

They don't have to prove you saw it. He had no point.

 

[txinvestigator]

I agree, CHL is Bogus. what ever happened to "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"? I call an unfair tax and all these complicated rules an infringement... If you have a CHL, you are part of the problem.

The supreme court has held that reasonable restrictions and rules are constitutional. Uneducated, unthinking people do not change that.

 

[jordanmills]

They don't have to prove you saw it. He had no point.

Sure he did. It seems incorrect to me, but it was definitely a point.

 

[txinvestigator]

Sure he did. It seems incorrect to me, but it was definitely a point.

It is not a point. It is an incorrect assumption on his part.

If the sign meets the legal requirements and you enter armed you can be convicted.

 

[APatriot]

If you enter an establishment where the 30.06 sign is posted at your entry and it is "legal", you are breaking the law. I am surprised why the 30.06 is even a topic of discussion when it is clearly stated in Texas law and covered in CHL classes.

Moreover, you enter an establishment where there is no 30.06 sign posted, or where there is a non-legal No Guns sign posted to some degree, and for some reason you are identified as "packing", and then you receive "verbal" notice to either leave the premises, or deposit your weapon in your vehicle, and then return, and you refuse to do so you are breaking the law. It is called trespass.

Verbal or written notice by an establishment as to no conceal carry has absolutely nothing to do with 30.06.

Lastly, there is no requirement that prosecution has to prove you "saw" the 30.06 when you proceeded thru the entry where it was posted. As a licensee, you should have and the law will presume you did see it.

 

[txinvestigator]

Verbal or written notice by an establishment as to no conceal carry has absolutely nothing to do with 30.06.

All good up to that point. 30.06 includes that if you are given notice that entry with a handgun is not allowed but you enter with a handgun, or if you are notified that remaining on the property with a handgun is not allowed and you fail to leave, then you have violated 30.06.

30.06 defines notice as ANY verbal communication, or a card or other document with this written on it;

"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"

or a sign posted with that language in English and Spanish with one inch letters in contrasting colors that is conspicuously located.

you enter an establishment where there is no 30.06 sign posted, or where there is a non-legal No Guns sign posted to some degree, and for some reason you are identified as "packing", and then you receive "verbal" notice to either leave the premises, or deposit your weapon in your vehicle, and then return, and you refuse to do so you are breaking the law. It is called trespass.

No, it is criminal trespass by a license holder, TPC 30.06.

 

[APatriot]

Thx.

What I meant to say was that even if an establishment did not post the 30.06, but somehow you were identified as "packing", and you were told to leave, you were required to do so even though a 30.06 sign was not posted (i.e., verbal notice by an establishment if such an establishment determined you were "packing" has nothing to do with the absence of a 30.06 sign).

 

[txinvestigator]

Thx.

What I meant to say was that even if an establishment did not post the 30.06, but somehow you were identified as "packing", and you were told to leave, you were required to do so even though a 30.06 sign was not posted (i.e., verbal notice by an establishment if such an establishment determined you were "packing" has nothing to do with the absence of a 30.06 sign).

Correct. However, if you don't leave it is not a trespass charge, it is the more serious criminal trespass by a license holder. A conviction would result in a permanent revocation of your CHL, rather than the 5 year revocation a trespass charge would get you.

I make the distinctiononly due to the permanent nature of the penalty.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I make the distinctiononly due to the permanent nature of the penalty.

And it's a good point - we have to remember that as licensed carriers, we DO have additional obligations/penalties under the law.

 

[308nato]

Being CHL holders also means you have to be more responsible when carying to keep the
anti gun folks off our backs.
It seems now adays people have no sense of responsibilty for there actions anymore.

 

[Dallas239]

Lastly, there is no requirement that prosecution has to prove you "saw" the 30.06 when you proceeded thru the entry where it was posted. As a licensee, you should have and the law will presume you did see it.

No presumptions. There is a required culpable mental state associated with every element of the offense, and the prosecution has the burden to prove every element including the requisite culpable mental state. In the case of section 30.06, the requisite culpable mental state for all elements is recklessness. As applied to the sign element, that means you either have to know about a legal sign or be aware of but consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that there is a legal sign.

 

[Nef]

A slight tangent, but what exactly constitutes written notice? Does a non 30.06 sign posted inside an establishment count?

Does the language in the written notice have to be the specific 30.06 message? Would the written notice have to be handed to you, as in a card, or napkin, or a piece of paper?

Since my mind is rolling, if the written notice is required to be in the 30.06 language, how would non 30.06 specific message in an employee handbook apply, if at all, in a legal sense.

I only ask because I was reading thread here awhile back, and thought that I read that written notice had to be in 30.06 language, but my girlfriend at the time asked her CHL instructor and he said that carrying at work in that circumstance would be illegal

Also I may have misinterpruted what my instructor said but, when the topic of drinking and carrying came up, I remember him saying there was zero tolerance for drinking while carrying.

sorry for rambling.

 

[txinvestigator]

A slight tangent, but what exactly constitutes written notice? Does a non 30.06 sign posted inside an establishment count?

NO

Does the language in the written notice have to be the specific 30.06 message

Yes, but only in English

Would the written notice have to be handed to you, as in a card, or napkin, or a piece of paper?

The law says the notice must be "given". I think this is a common sense issue

Since my mind is rolling, if the written notice is required to be in the 30.06 language, how would non 30.06 specific message in an employee handbook apply, if at all, in a legal sense.

It would not. You could be fired for violating a non 30.06 notice, but not prosecuted.

Also I may have misinterpruted what my instructor said but, when the topic of drinking and carrying came up, I remember him saying there was zero tolerance for drinking while carrying.
.

If that is what he said then he was wrong. You cannot carry while intoxicated.

Do yourself a favor and google Texas Penal Code 30.06

Also Google Texas Penal Code 46.035(d)