TexasCHLforum.com

oohrah wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:57 am A bit of digression - is this a bill currently up for consideration in the 2021 lege? My googling shows similar bills as far back as 2007. So, if it is now law, why isn't it being referred to by its PC instead? And I'm curious - if it is not yet a law, why is it being discussed in LEO training (since it may never pass). Just curious.

This is referring to 86(R) HB 121 which passed in the 2018/2019 legislative session and went into effect on September 1, 2019.

nightmare69 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:09 am Took my legal update from TCOLE and it spoke briefly about HB 121. What I gathered is the 06/07 signs are moot until you receive verbal warning to leave. Can someone elaborate on this? Thanks.

This is probably due to the way they are interpreting the interaction between 30.06 (a)(2),(b), (d), and (g):

TPC30.06 wrote:(a)(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

TPC30.06 wrote:(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.

TPC 30.06 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

TPC 30.06 wrote:(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder was personally given notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed from the property.

The same interpretation would apply to the interaction between 30.07 (a)(2), (d), and (h).

You have provided effective notice if you can prove that the sign was posted per the law, however if a person ignores the sign, there has to be oral communication for them to leave, but if they leave they have a defense to prosecution. If they don't promptly leave, they can be punished with a Class A misdemeanor.

Example: A business owner with 30.07 signs properly posted visibly at every entrance notices someone enter the business with an openly carried handgun. The business owner doesn't want to risk a confrontation with the armed individual, so they call law enforcement to enforce the law. The police show up and provide oral communication to the individual who then promptly departs. The sign has had no effect other than providing the mechanism for law enforcement to get involved since the individual is now off the property and has a defense to prosecution.

ETA: TPC 30.06 (a)(2) and (b) quotations for context