another 30.06 question

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire


Topic author
CZp10
Banned
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:39 am
Location: DFW

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby CZp10 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:09 am

Twomillenium,
I apologize for not being more clear, and for my ignorance. The law states that you have committed Criminal Trespass if you carry past a correctly worded/posted sign. I understand that you have to charged and agree to pay the $200 fine before you become a convicted criminal. I was arguing against, in principle, what I see as a poorly written law that, however unlikely, can theoretically can be used against otherwise law abiding people. Not being charged/convicted doesn’t undo the reality of actually being in violation of the law. Semantics I suppose, the basic definition of the word “criminal” is one who breaks the law, not just one who happens to end up being convicted. I can’t see anywhere that you can only be charged after refusing to leave, as you state. Leaving when asked still makes it a Class C violation, not leaving makes it a class A, why would there be two specifically listed classes of misdemeanor if you can only be charged with class A as you state?

Liberty,
I know I am making a mountain out of molehill, but I (rightly or wrongly) choose to think in the .01% chance of things happening, not the 99.99% it won’t. I also wanted to contradict posts that I see claiming paying the $200 is no big deal. It is a criminal conviction which can legally be used against you in the future. Would you mind please letting me know why you think being a red cross CPR certified volunteer would not be considered as: “any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations”?

Crazy2medic,
That is the $10,000 question. I would guess that not one single person anywhere can answer that question until it is tested in court. I have read everything I can find so far on it, and the bottom line is the law is so unbelievably vague that any defense attorney should be happy to fight in court for you. However, as I posted, you will have to pay for that attorney yourself. But as so many helpful people here have pointed out, it is a long series of events that have to occur before it matters. You have to carry past a correct sign, then law enforcement has to be called or be present and notice you, then they and the DA have decide to pursue the misdemeanor charge. I don’t think the law is meant to imply people can ignore 30.06 signs, but it gives you a “defense to prosecution” if you are seen to fall under the volunteer emergency personnel definition. Mr. Cotton wrote, “However, the Bill also provides a defense to TPC §§30.06 and 30.07 merely because they are VESP, whether or not they are “on duty.” This goes too far. Such exception should apply, but only when actually rendering emergency services.” I really don’t know how this will play out in reality.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby ScottDLS » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:43 am

CZp10 wrote:Twomillenium,
I apologize for not being more clear, and for my ignorance. The law states that you have committed Criminal Trespass if you carry past a correctly worded/posted sign. I understand that you have to charged and agree to pay the $200 fine before you become a convicted criminal. I was arguing against, in principle, what I see as a poorly written law that, however unlikely, can theoretically can be used against otherwise law abiding people. Not being charged/convicted doesn’t undo the reality of actually being in violation of the law. Semantics I suppose, the basic definition of the word “criminal” is one who breaks the law, not just one who happens to end up being convicted. I can’t see anywhere that you can only be charged after refusing to leave, as you state. Leaving when asked still makes it a Class C violation, not leaving makes it a class A, why would there be two specifically listed classes of misdemeanor if you can only be charged with class A as you state?


(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.

Speeding 46 in 45 zone is a class C misdemeanor as well. So I would venture to guess by your definition approximately 50% of the population are criminals, along with my neighbors who let their grass grow more than 6" or water on the wrong day. It is a fact that speeding and lawn watering (in my town) are criminal offenses (class C). You can request a trial by jury in JP or municipal court if charged. Some states make these civil offenses, which means they are not a crime. But Texas makes them class c misdemeanors (crimes).

CZp10 wrote:Liberty,
I know I am making a mountain out of molehill, but I (rightly or wrongly) choose to think in the .01% chance of things happening, not the 99.99% it won’t. I also wanted to contradict posts that I see claiming paying the $200 is no big deal. It is a criminal conviction which can legally be used against you in the future. Would you mind please letting me know why you think being a red cross CPR certified volunteer would not be considered as: “any individual who, as a volunteer, provides services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations”?

Crazy2medic,
That is the $10,000 question. I would guess that not one single person anywhere can answer that question until it is tested in court. I have read everything I can find so far on it, and the bottom line is the law is so unbelievably vague that any defense attorney should be happy to fight in court for you. However, as I posted, you will have to pay for that attorney yourself. But as so many helpful people here have pointed out, it is a long series of events that have to occur before it matters. You have to carry past a correct sign, then law enforcement has to be called or be present and notice you, then they and the DA have decide to pursue the misdemeanor charge. I don’t think the law is meant to imply people can ignore 30.06 signs, but it gives you a “defense to prosecution” if you are seen to fall under the volunteer emergency personnel definition. Mr. Cotton wrote, “However, the Bill also provides a defense to TPC §§30.06 and 30.07 merely because they are VESP, whether or not they are “on duty.” This goes too far. Such exception should apply, but only when actually rendering emergency services.” I really don’t know how this will play out in reality.


A Defense to Prosecution is the same thing that you have for carrying ANYWHERE under the authority of LTC, or while being a cop, or any of the other 46.15 exceptions, they are by appellate level case law only DEFENSES to prosecution. So the same thing with VESP and 30.06... Are you the "test case" every day by carrying with a LTC? :shock:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


Topic author
CZp10
Banned
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:39 am
Location: DFW

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby CZp10 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:18 am

ScottDLS wrote:A Defense to Prosecution is the same thing that you have for carrying ANYWHERE under the authority of LTC, or while being a cop, or any of the other 46.15 exceptions, they are by appellate level case law only DEFENSES to prosecution. So the same thing with VESP and 30.06... Are you the "test case" every day by carrying with a LTC? :shock:

Just to be clear, it is not my definition, but the definition of the word criminal. Again, that is just pointless semantics, I was just trying to better, and I guess failing to, explain my earlier comments.

Being new to all this, I really don’t see how a “defense to prosecution” means much in the real world. It is just a few words that will not protect you in and of themselves. It seems like it will be up to the prosecution if they will challenge that particular defense, then the judge can weigh in, and ultimately up to the jury I guess. Looks like a lot of laws are written a bit vaguely and open ended to allow the court and prosecution to decide how they want to play it. I guess we are all test cases for a lot of things every day.

I don’t know how to search legal records, so I don’t know if anyone has ever been charged and convicted of a 30.06 or 30.07 class C level violation. If no one has ever been charged after they agreed to leave a properly posted location, I am not sure how we know what any of this means in the real world.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby ScottDLS » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:36 pm

CZp10 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:A Defense to Prosecution is the same thing that you have for carrying ANYWHERE under the authority of LTC, or while being a cop, or any of the other 46.15 exceptions, they are by appellate level case law only DEFENSES to prosecution. So the same thing with VESP and 30.06... Are you the "test case" every day by carrying with a LTC? :shock:

Just to be clear, it is not my definition, but the definition of the word criminal. Again, that is just pointless semantics, I was just trying to better, and I guess failing to, explain my earlier comments.

Being new to all this, I really don’t see how a “defense to prosecution” means much in the real world. It is just a few words that will not protect you in and of themselves. It seems like it will be up to the prosecution if they will challenge that particular defense, then the judge can weigh in, and ultimately up to the jury I guess. Looks like a lot of laws are written a bit vaguely and open ended to allow the court and prosecution to decide how they want to play it. I guess we are all test cases for a lot of things every day.

I don’t know how to search legal records, so I don’t know if anyone has ever been charged and convicted of a 30.06 or 30.07 class C level violation. If no one has ever been charged after they agreed to leave a properly posted location, I am not sure how we know what any of this means in the real world.


I agree it's semantics. You are a criminal if you speed. OK, so what? I don't care. I'm not advocating speeding, but if you have been convicted of it as many have, then what are the consequences? Well you have to pay the statutory fine, or perhaps pay higher car insurance, and of course live with the fact that you are now and for all time a CRIMINAL. :roll:

A Defense to Prosecution has a very specific definition in the Texas Penal Code which goes to "burden of proof" which in criminal cases is by Constitutional Law and tradition "beyond a reasonable doubt". The Defense vs. Exception, etc. lays out the point at which the issue must be raised; in charging, at trial, and whether the prosecutor or defense must raise the issue.

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11592
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby C-dub » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:42 pm

I see that ScottDLS brought up the speed limit thing. I was going to mention this as well. It is a sign, that if you do what it prohibits then you are a criminal just the same as if you CC past a 30.06 sign. Are speed limit signs unconstitutional?

BTW, I agree with you and there are many here that also agree that we should be able to carry everywhere LE does with VERY FEW exceptions. The same also applies to legislators. There really shouldn't be much of anything that applies to them that doesn't apply to us and vice versa.

The problem with there being little or no case law on these types of violations is that, as a group, CHL/LTC holders have fewer arrests or convictions of crimes than the group of law enforcers in the state of Texas. I may not have stated that completely correctly, but that's the gist of it. We don't break the law very much or at all and I'm not aware of anyone that would like to be a test case in this or any other areas. So, often times, just complaining that something is vague or confusing doesn't ever get addressed by the legislature until someone is found guilty or punished or is in some way harmed because of some unintended or incorrect interpretation of a law.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.


rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby rp_photo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:59 pm

I don't see 30.06 as a sacred property right but rather a public accommodation issue.

Anyone who opens their property to the public must agree to not discriminate against various classes, which in my opinion should include legal carriers.

Along with that, property owners who don't post should be shielded from liability over actions of a legal carrier on their property, but being exposed to liability for the death and injury of a disarmed legal carrier if they choose to post. Note that this would provide a crucial upside to not posting which is missing now.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"


rp_photo
Senior Member
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:07 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby rp_photo » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:06 pm

C-dub wrote:The problem with there being little or no case law on these types of violations is that, as a group, CHL/LTC holders have fewer arrests or convictions of crimes than the group of law enforcers in the state of Texas. I may not have stated that completely correctly, but that's the gist of it. We don't break the law very much or at all and I'm not aware of anyone that would like to be a test case in this or any other areas. So, often times, just complaining that something is vague or confusing doesn't ever get addressed by the legislature until someone is found guilty or punished or is in some way harmed because of some unintended or incorrect interpretation of a law.


Imagine that Rosa Parks was able to sit in the front of the bus day after day and no one was the wiser. That's what 30.06 is like.
CHL since 2/2011
Glock 26, S&W 442, Ruger SP101 .357 3",
S&W M&P 40, Remington 870 Express 12 ga 18"


TreyHouston
Senior Member
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:00 pm
Location: Tomball

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby TreyHouston » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:14 pm

OlBill wrote:
aero10 wrote:This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.


And that needs to be corrected.


An off duty police officer (yes, its a job) has to follow the same rules as every citizen out there. There are no "special accommodations". Now, do other police officers cut them some slack? Yes.
If I believe correctly, only detectives, cheif, and ?sheriff? are immune when off duty BUT can not drink if carrying.
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas

How many times a day could you say this? :cheers2:


Topic author
CZp10
Banned
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:39 am
Location: DFW

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby CZp10 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:21 pm

C-dub wrote:I see that ScottDLS brought up the speed limit thing. I was going to mention this as well. It is a sign, that if you do what it prohibits then you are a criminal just the same as if you CC past a 30.06 sign. Are speed limit signs unconstitutional?

The speed limit sign has been put up by the government, not a private individual, also it applies to everyone not to a select few. Furthermore it has been tested in the courts many times. Just trying to point out that I view that differently than the 30.06/30.07 signs.

My basic wish would be that the penalty part of 30.06/30.07 (assuming you leave when asked directly) would be just a fine, not criminality, it would escalate to a crime when you refused to leave.

Speaking of being able to carry in more places, has anyone ever suggested that we could choose, at our own expense, to get a significantly greater amount of firearms training to receive what you might call a higher level of carry permit? Basically you get a lot more law enforcement type training, and that allows you to carry in all but a few specific places? I am wondering if that would make the anti carry crowed feel better or not.


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby crazy2medic » Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:52 pm

I am wondering if that would make the anti carry crowed feel better or not.

No because they are sheep down to their souls, they wouldn't fight to protect their own and the fact that we who carry are willing to stand when they would run is antithetical to their belief system!

Lord if today is the day you call me home, let me die in a pile of my empty brass!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention

User avatar

aero10
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:30 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby aero10 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:12 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
OlBill wrote:
aero10 wrote:This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.


And that needs to be corrected.


An off duty police officer (yes, its a job) has to follow the same rules as every citizen out there. There are no "special accommodations". Now, do other police officers cut them some slack? Yes.
If I believe correctly, only detectives, cheif, and ?sheriff? are immune when off duty BUT can not drink if carrying.

Actually, 46.15 states otherwise.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby OlBill » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:44 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
OlBill wrote:
aero10 wrote:This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.


And that needs to be corrected.


An off duty police officer (yes, its a job) has to follow the same rules as every citizen out there. There are no "special accommodations". Now, do other police officers cut them some slack? Yes.
If I believe correctly, only detectives, cheif, and ?sheriff? are immune when off duty BUT can not drink if carrying.

So an officer cannot walk past a 30.06 sign?


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby OlBill » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:45 pm

aero10 wrote:
TreyHouston wrote:
OlBill wrote:
aero10 wrote:This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.


And that needs to be corrected.


An off duty police officer (yes, its a job) has to follow the same rules as every citizen out there. There are no "special accommodations". Now, do other police officers cut them some slack? Yes.
If I believe correctly, only detectives, cheif, and ?sheriff? are immune when off duty BUT can not drink if carrying.

Actually, 46.15 states otherwise.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, and neither section prohibits a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon in this state, including in an establishment in this state serving the public, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties while carrying the weapon;


Thank you. That needs to be corrected.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby ScottDLS » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:07 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
OlBill wrote:
aero10 wrote:This isn't true. 30.06/7 has no bearing on off-duty police officers, even if they have a LTC.


And that needs to be corrected.


An off duty police officer (yes, its a job) has to follow the same rules as every citizen out there. There are no "special accommodations". Now, do other police officers cut them some slack? Yes.
If I believe correctly, only detectives, cheif, and ?sheriff? are immune when off duty BUT can not drink if carrying.


No, any police officer on or off duty is not committing a crime walking past a 30.06/7 sign. In Texas they can also not only drink, but be intoxicated and carry legally, though it would likely be a career limiting move. They can also carry in every state and DC without a permit. So in my opinion, they definitely are granted "special accommodations".
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: another 30.06 question

Postby ELB » Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:13 pm

crazy2medic wrote:
ninjabread wrote:Get a red cross first aid card and soon you can ignore 30.06 signs.


??? So as a Certified Texas Paramedic with a CPR, ACLS, PHTLS, PALS and other medical cards I can ignore 30.06 signs? Are you sure?


Only if you use those certifications as a volunteer. If you act as a paid paramedic (or other emergency services person) only then the defense to prosecution is not available to you. If you could provide evidence that in addition to your paid service you also "as a volunteer, [provide] services for the benefit of the general public during emergency situations" then the defense to prosecution for going past 30.06/30.07 signs would seem to be available to you.

Might be a question for the court whether mere possession of a Red Cross First Aid card by a person who is not a member of a volunteer organization and has no other evidence the he ever acted as a volunteer is sufficient to establish "volunteer emergency services personnel" status. A card plus membership in a VFD would seem to be solid evidence.

Also, since the Legislature did not include the "engaged in emergency services" text for 30.06/30.07 but did for other restrictions (schools, bars), then it seems pretty clear that the defense to prosecution for 30.06/30.07 applies all the time, regardless of "duty status." I don't know the reason for this, but I would hazard a guess that it is so VESP can go to restaurants and such without having to disarm. I am aware of volunteer fire departments whose members stand shifts at the station -- these personnel can (after 1 Sep) could then go to a posted restaurant or store between runs during a duty shift and have the defense to prosecution available to them.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:


Return to “New to CHL?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests