30.06 parking garage at public non-profit corporation

[A-R]

Been meaning to post these photos for a while and finally getting around to it. The photos below show what appears to be a properly worded and formatted 30.06 sign on a parking garage of the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation headquarters at the La Frontera complex in Round Rock. Was driving by this parking garage on my way into the larger La Frontera complex (a huge shopping area that also includes some office buildings located near I-35 and SH-45 toll road). I noticed the sign out of the corner of my eye, so circled back around to get a closer look, and sure enough - it's a 30.06. Didn't measure the letters to see if they are 1 inch tall, but they're close if not actually 1 inch tall. Everything else fits the 30.06 wording requirements.

Questions:

• Is a 30.06 posting valid on an entire parking garage, or just the "interior" sections like stairwells and elevators? If I drive my car into that garage with my gun in the car, am I trespassing?
• What if I enter that garage while carrying a handgun in my car under authority of the Motorist Protection Act? Does 30.06 even apply to someone carrying in their car under MPA? Is this yet another instance (like having to tell a LEO during a traffic stop that you're carrying) when CHLees are held to a higher standard than an average citizen carrying under MPA? This sign - if valid - seems to exclude ONLY CHL and not MPA.
• Can this organization even legally post a 30.06 sign? It's a quasi-government entity, formed by the Legislature and subject to legislative oversight, with a board of directors appointed by the governor. But it apparently uses no state money and claims it is not a "state agency" ... but, is it a "government entity" and thus not allowed to post a 30.06 sign based on 30.06 (e)?

http://www.tgslc.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Info from the "about us" section of the web site

What is TG?
Created by the Texas Legislature in 1979, TG is a public, nonprofit Corporation that administers the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). (The FFELP was formerly known as the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.)

What is the FFELP?
The FFELP is a government-sponsored program that provides low interest loans to help students and their parents pay for education beyond high school. The program includes Subsidized Federal Stafford Loans, Unsubsidized Federal Stafford Loans, and Federal PLUS Loans. The FFELP is the largest student financial aid program in the nation.

How does the FFELP work?
FFELP loans are made through a public/private relationship involving borrowers, schools, lenders, TG, and the federal government. Under the program, schools determine students' and parents' eligibility for loans. Private lenders (such as local banks or credit unions) provide the money for the loans, TG reviews loan applications and guarantees the loans (see below), the federal government subsidizes and reinsures the loans, and the borrower repays the loans.

What is TG's role?
TG administers the FFELP for schools and lenders. TG guarantees repayment of student loans to private lenders, determines student loan eligibility, monitors loan status, and pays claims to lenders if necessary. In addition, the Corporation shares information about the program with students and schools to help make financial access to postsecondary education available to all qualified individuals.

Since its creation, TG has guaranteed more than $61 billion in loans to more than 4 million student borrowers and their parents.

How is TG governed?
The Corporation is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors. The Governor of Texas appoints 10 of the members (four representatives from the education community, five from the financial community, and one student). The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts is designated by law as the 11th member.

The Board's role is to:

Appoint TG's president and prescribe his or her duties,
Delegate powers to the president,
Provide long-range direction for the Corporation,
Set policies, and
Approve the budget.
TG's president and staff oversee the Corporation's daily operations.

How is TG funded?
Although created by the Texas Legislature and subject to legislative oversight, TG is not a state agency and receives no state funds. Most of TG's income is derived from fees on the student loans the Corporation guarantees and recovery fees on loans collected.

[Keith B]

Here is my thought.

1. If the agency is truly non-profit and does not receive income or financial support to operate from tax dollars (not the backing of the loans like FDIC), then it is not a government agency and thus can post a 30.06.

2. If they can legally post the 30.06, then the whole parking lot is off limits, UNLESS it is a shared parking lot with other businesses that can't post.

One other scenario is that the parking lot is a shared lot and owned by the building leasing company. If they were the ones that placed it and other there were businesses other than a government entity served, then I would think the 30.06 might be valid even through the government entity couldn't validly post their office.

As usual, IANAL, etc.

[A-R]

So, in your opinion, could someone legally enter this garage with a handgun in their car under the MPA if they DID NOT have a CHL?

This just seems wrong somehow that you cannot prohibit a gun in a car in a parking lot (employee rules not withstanding - I'm only speaking of legal trouble here), but you can prohibit guns - even in cars - if you stack two parking lots on top of each other.

[Keith B]

So, in your opinion, could someone legally enter this garage with a handgun in their car under the MPA if they DID NOT have a CHL?

This just seems wrong somehow that you cannot prohibit a gun in a car in a parking lot (employee rules not withstanding - I'm only speaking of legal trouble here), but you can prohibit guns - even in cars - if you stack two parking lots on top of each other.

Yep, as the MPA is not governed by 30.06. Unfortunately as CHL's we are bound by it, and can be prosecuted under the statute.

[A-R]

One more reason to work with the legislature to make your automobile, truck, RV (whatever) an extension of your home - your "castle" - under the law in all cases, not just in terms of self-defense under the "Castle Law". After all what good is having the RIGHT to defend yourself while inside your car if you're denied the ability. If you can legally possess it in your home, you should be allowed to legal possess it in your automobile in all cases. Your car should become like a moving "safe zone" no matter where you park it. If companies don't want your car on their property, then they have to prohibit ALL CARS on the property.

[srothstein]

So, in your opinion, could someone legally enter this garage with a handgun in their car under the MPA if they DID NOT have a CHL?

This just seems wrong somehow that you cannot prohibit a gun in a car in a parking lot (employee rules not withstanding - I'm only speaking of legal trouble here), but you can prohibit guns - even in cars - if you stack two parking lots on top of each other.

Yep, as the MPA is not governed by 30.06. Unfortunately as CHL's we are bound by it, and can be prosecuted under the statute.

Wrong answer, IMO. Posting a 30.06 sign on a parking lot has almost no legal effect. 30.06 clearly only applies to people with a CHL, but it also clearly states it only applies to people carrying under the authority of the CHL. When you are in your car, you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL. Your CHL is an exception to a law and the law does not apply to you in the car, so the exception is not needed.

Thus, even a person with a CHL can carry in their car past a legally posted and compliant 30.06 sign.

So, what is the reason I said it has almost no effect instead of absolutely no effect? Because it does mean you cannot carry while walking in the parking lot. You cannot carry from your car to the office building or even while taking a short cut through the parking lot to the next business over.

But there was another interesting question raised. What if the parking lot serves more than one business? Can one of the businesses post the lot and make it stick? I don't think a tenant business could post the lot unless it had full control over the lot. But the landlord could post it and you would have no way to know who placed the signs (unless they were dumb enough to have the company name on them). I would recommend obeying it (while walking) until you knew for sure.

[PvilleStang]

My question with this sign:

Every place I've been says the sign should have a title reading, "PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY" before the body of the text, and in no sign do I see the gun busters logo on there. Does forgetting the title void the sign's validity? How about adding artwork?

NOTE: The signs I'm using as comparison are A) the sign shown at Texas3006.com and B) the sign shown at Handgunlaw.us

[ScottDLS]

My question with this sign:

Every place I've been says the sign should have a title reading, "PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY" before the body of the text, and in no sign do I see the gun busters logo on there. Does forgetting the title void the sign's validity? How about adding artwork?

NOTE: The signs I'm using as comparison are A) the sign shown at Texas3006.com and B) the sign shown at Handgunlaw.us

I don't think that any title, lack thereof, or artwork invalidates the sign. The reason I say this is that I went to the CHL manual to read the statute and it says...(see below).

In a way, I like the title suggested in the web sites and even the artwork, as it draws my attention to the sign. That way I can avoid passing a proper 30.06 notice and risking breaking the law. But, I don't think that the lack of a title invalidates a sign that otherwise meets the specifications in the law.

Interestingly, the law doesn't provide the Spanish translation, so if there is one there, I wouldn't depend on the lack of grammar to invalidate the notice.

(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"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(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.

[puma guy]

Has any one considered if posting a 30.06 would hold the poster responsible for safety of patrons, i.e. If God forbid one is injured or killed in a holdup inside the garage?

[Keith B]

Steve,

So to be clear, you are stating that the MPA does override the CHL, and that we as license holders can state that the CHL does not apply to us in the car any longer? Do you have any type of case law or precedence that you base your statement on? I am curious as to why the license would not apply, even though you can also carry in your car. The reason I ask is we are still required to show our CHL when asked for ID, but the MPA doesn't require anything like that. If what your stating is fact, then we should not have to show our license when asked for ID if we are sitting in the car with the handgun, only when we are not carrying under the MPA.

So, in your opinion, could someone legally enter this garage with a handgun in their car under the MPA if they DID NOT have a CHL?

This just seems wrong somehow that you cannot prohibit a gun in a car in a parking lot (employee rules not withstanding - I'm only speaking of legal trouble here), but you can prohibit guns - even in cars - if you stack two parking lots on top of each other.

Yep, as the MPA is not governed by 30.06. Unfortunately as CHL's we are bound by it, and can be prosecuted under the statute.

Wrong answer, IMO. Posting a 30.06 sign on a parking lot has almost no legal effect. 30.06 clearly only applies to people with a CHL, but it also clearly states it only applies to people carrying under the authority of the CHL. When you are in your car, you are not carrying under the authority of your CHL. Your CHL is an exception to a law and the law does not apply to you in the car, so the exception is not needed.

Thus, even a person with a CHL can carry in their car past a legally posted and compliant 30.06 sign.

So, what is the reason I said it has almost no effect instead of absolutely no effect? Because it does mean you cannot carry while walking in the parking lot. You cannot carry from your car to the office building or even while taking a short cut through the parking lot to the next business over.

But there was another interesting question raised. What if the parking lot serves more than one business? Can one of the businesses post the lot and make it stick? I don't think a tenant business could post the lot unless it had full control over the lot. But the landlord could post it and you would have no way to know who placed the signs (unless they were dumb enough to have the company name on them). I would recommend obeying it (while walking) until you knew for sure.

[A-R]

Very interesting take on this, Steve. I too would like to know the answer to Keith's question.

[shootthesheet]

As it stands if a person has a CHL they have to obey the laws governing CHL. The MPA does not apply to a CHL in anything I have seen. Until the government changes the law to equalize CHL carry with those under the MPA we are bound by this unfair treatment by property owners and unconstitutional treatment by government.

If we want this and other CHL laws relaxed we have to join the TSRA, vote for friendly candidates and contact our reps and tell them. That is especially true for anyone with hostile reps or Democrats that have and will continue to use every tactic they can to stop progress on this and other issues. Not every Democrat is hostile but every one will follow their party leadership no matter how hostile they are to our rights and privileges.

[denwego]

IANAL:

I agree that a 30.06 sign purporting to prohibit carry wouldn't have any effect if you kept your handgun in the car, for the same reasons quoted above. The laws combine in a pretty clear and logical way: PE §46.02 makes it illegal to carry a handgun except on your property or in your car; PE §46.15 says §46.02 doesn't apply to someone carrying a concealed handgun under the authority of a CHL and thereby makes concealed carry legal for such a person; PE §30.06 says that someone carrying a concealed handgun under the authority of a CHL is trespassing if property's posted with a compliant sign.

To me, if you're in your car, you don't have to "carry under the authority" of a CHL any more than you would be bound to the limitations of a CHL in your own home; it's necessary on the sidewalk, but entirely superfluous in a location where §46.02 doesn't apply to begin with. A person couldn't be charged with intentional failure to conceal under §46.035 if they were in their bedroom, because they can simply use the "authority" granted by being in legal control of that property instead of their CHL, and it would not longer be applicable to them. Likewise, §30.06 can't be applied to a police officer, because they carry under the authority of that position, even if they also had a CHL issued to them.

Nota bene - It also appears to me that if you were carrying under the exception to §46.02 of being in your car, etc, that while §30.06 wouldn't apply to you, §30.05 would... the exception for CHLs to normal criminal trespass while armed isn't applicable if you're not using your CHL's authority. Interesting food for thought there.

Citations for the win!

Code: Select all

Sec. 46.02.  UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1)  on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2)  inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1)  A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1)  the handgun is in plain view; or
(2)  the person is:
(A)  engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B)  prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C)  a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.


Sec. 46.15.  NONAPPLICABILITY. ... 
(b)  Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(6)  is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;


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.

Sec. 30.05.  CRIMINAL TRESPASS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another, including residential land, agricultural land, a recreational vehicle park, a building, or an aircraft or other vehicle, without effective consent and the person:
(1)  had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2)  received notice to depart but failed to do so.
... 
(f)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1)  the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2)  the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

[A-R]

Great post, denwego. I like your train of thought on this - in addition to Steve's.

I'm very interested in the trespassing 30.05 vs 30.06 though. Don't have time to research for an answer, so I'll pose the question. Could the "gunbusters" graphic that is part of this 30.06 sign be enough to get someone with gun in car carrying under authority of MPA busted for 30.05 trespassing? There have been members in the past making an argument that gunbusters could even make a CHL into a trespasser under 30.05, which I strongly disagree. But if you're sort of waiving your CHL autority to avoid 30.06 by saying you're carrying under MPA, could 30.05 still bite you because of the gun busters?

Not sure if above makes any sense, but I'm outta time ....

[denwego]

Going by my gut and the plain language of the text, I can see a prosecutor very easily arguing that the gunbuster portion of the sign would serve as adequate notice under §30.05, because there are no statutory requirements for notice under that section and it would be clear to the reasonable person that whoever posted it didn't want any guns past that point. I don't see any way §30.05 could apply to someone carrying under their CHL's authority; we're well-protected from that. If you wave the authority and use the MPA provisions, though, it does appear that you would no longer meet the statutory requirements to apply the defense against the charge, and §30.05 could bite you.

I wouldn't worry about it in your car as a practical matter, however. A 7-11 which has a "no shirts, no shoes, no service" sign can have you trespassed for going in half-naked, but can't really force the issue before you get out of your car. If you meet the requirements under §46.02(a1) [concealed, no criminal activity, no gang membership, etc.], they would essentially have to violate your right to privacy before they could demonstrate sufficient proof to trespass you, and the courts don't appreciate one person committing a crime to prove another's crime in turn.