CCW at Medical City Dallas

[slow944]

My new granddaughter was born at MCD on Friday and as I went in the entrance at Bldg D, there is a sign posted on the door that states, " Under Texas State Law It Is Against The Law to Carry A Firearm On This Property." Is this considered a legal 30.06 or 30.05?? Thanks in advance.

[Kalrog]

NOT 30.06 enforceable. Is it city owned or private? If it is city owned, then even if it is posted it isn't enforceable. If it is private, then they have to post EXACTLY as described in 30.06 - anything else is not valid.

Oh, and congratulations!

[Excaliber]

NOT 30.06 enforceable. Is it city owned or private? If it is city owned, then even if it is posted it isn't enforceable. If it is private, then they have to post EXACTLY as described in 30.06 - anything else is not valid.

You might want to carefully read Penal Code section 46.035 - Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder - section b(4) :

b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;

Here's a link to the text of the full section:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/do ... #46.035.00

[seamusTX]

PC §46.035(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

That's the law. If they catch you, yer takin' a ride.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

You might want to carefully read Penal Code section 46.035 - Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder - section b(4) :

b) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the
license holder's person:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under
Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing
home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the
license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing
home administration, as appropriate;

Now read the whole law:
PC §46.035(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

[jimlongley]

What he said.

[Excaliber]

PC §46.035(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

Now I'm really glad that I added that "I am not a lawyer" line to my signature.

I stand corrected.

For me it's an unusual method of legal wording compared to the other states I've lived in (appending a nonapplicability subsection instead of stating the requirement in the body of the law). I had read the prohibitions as absolutes. I'll have to watch for that when reading other statutes.

Thanks for calling attention to this for someone as new to Texas as I am.

[jimlongley]

The funny layout is due to the way Texas amends current law - they could rewrite and replace the whole section, or they could do what they did there and merely add a subsection that clarifies.

This is something I hope to see in the 2009 season, a subsection to 30.06 that states that improperly displayed 30.06 signs are considered null and void.

And another subsection that makes possession of firearms, whether under CHL, or traveling, or whatever, by employees, in parking lots, is protected.

[KBCraig]

For me it's an unusual method of legal wording compared to the other states I've lived in (appending a nonapplicability subsection instead of stating the requirement in the body of the law). I had read the prohibitions as absolutes. I'll have to watch for that when reading other statutes.

It's common in Texas. Instead of re-writing the base section to ammend it, they just append a subsection that says "except if..."

Another thing that's important is to always read the definitions at the top of each chapter or section.

Texas code is actually more readable than many other states'. The part-time legislature is to thank for that. They can mess things up, but overall they're better than a bunch of full-time, well-paid legislators.

[Excaliber]

Texas code is actually more readable than many other states'. The part-time legislature is to thank for that. They can mess things up, but overall they're better than a bunch of full-time, well-paid legislators

I agree that the end product content is much better than those in many other states. I don't mind spending a little time getting used to the formatting. Thanks to all for the tips on what to look for.

[Greybeard]

"PC §46.035(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Dont' feel lonesome on that one. Some instructors have even got away from their Austin (area) training school(s) without having that pointed out to them (intentionally or not ...)

The simplest way I've found to say it is "That was an amendment to an amendment." (46.035 amended 45.03 in 1995, and the gobelty gook quoted above amended 46.035 in 1997.)

[slow944]

Thanks Guys for clearing that up for me. Our granddaughter came home on Monday so I don't have to worry about that anymore unless I have to go back for something.

[texasag93]

Medical City is part of HCA.

I am working on the CEO of my local HCA to get their 30.06 compliant wording down.



texasag

[lrb111]

The funny layout is due to the way Texas amends current law - they could rewrite and replace the whole section, or they could do what they did there and merely add a subsection that clarifies.

This is something I hope to see in the 2009 season, a subsection to 30.06 that states that improperly displayed 30.06 signs are considered null and void.

And another subsection that makes possession of firearms, whether under CHL, or traveling, or whatever, by employees, in parking lots, is protected.

Well, there's this: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... osting.htm

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

1. includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
2. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
3. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

[GeoJAP]

PC §46.035(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor
was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

That's the law. If they catch you, yer takin' a ride.

- Jim

I don't understand this. It seems to me that the law is saying that if a proper 30.06 sign is not posted, then the ban on carrying inside a hospital, church or amusement park does not apply. One may then carry concealed in these locations if a 30.06 sign is not posted.

Is this correct? It appears you are saying that it is still against the law to carry in a hospital, church or amusement park if an improper 30.06 sign is posted.

Thank you for the clarification. :)