County posting 30.05

[magillapd]

My question, can a county decide that they want all county buildings posted 30.05 and not allow CHL carry? I'm not talking about buildings that have a court room.

[CaptWoodrow10]

Do you mean 30.06? Even so, the answer is no.

[RPB]

if you actually meant 30.05 ... (No Trespassing, essentially no one can go there?)

30.05
(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.

If a county, a subdivision of the State, decided to post a bunch of invalid 30.06 signs, I suppose they could post the invalid signs and waste taxpayer money doing it, but gunbuster signs might be cheaper.

30.06
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.30.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[magillapd]

Do you mean 30.06? Even so, the answer is no.

No, it said 30.05. I didn't think they could forbid CHL carry because they are a goverment entity and it's at buildings that do not house trial courts.

[sjfcontrol]

Do you mean 30.06? Even so, the answer is no.

No, it said 30.05. I didn't think they could forbid CHL carry because they are a goverment entity and it's at buildings that do not house trial courts.

You are correct. With the exception that they can prevent carry at "government meetings" by posting 30.06.
Where are you talking about?

[magillapd]

Do you mean 30.06? Even so, the answer is no.

No, it said 30.05. I didn't think they could forbid CHL carry because they are a goverment entity and it's at buildings that do not house trial courts.

You are correct. With the exception that they can prevent carry at "government meetings" by posting 30.06.
Where are you talking about?

I haven't seen it posted, I read it on a written policy for Tarrant County.

[Keith B]

Do you mean 30.06? Even so, the answer is no.

No, it said 30.05. I didn't think they could forbid CHL carry because they are a goverment entity and it's at buildings that do not house trial courts.

You are correct. With the exception that they can prevent carry at "government meetings" by posting 30.06.
Where are you talking about?

I haven't seen it posted, I read it on a written policy for Tarrant County.

30.05 is not applicable to a CHL'er, only 30.06. And, unless it is a meeting of a government entity, they can't post and enforce 30.06.

[dicion]

30.05 is not applicable to a CHL'er, only 30.06. And, unless it is a meeting of a government entity, they can't post and enforce 30.06.

Actually, 30.05 is applicable to anyone, if they are asked to leave for any reason Other than a concealed handgun.

30.05 does not apply solely to a CHL 'trespassing' solely because of their handgun. Eg, the CHL exception clause in 30.05, is what essentially makes gunbusters signs worthless.

30.05 says they cannot say your trespassing simply because you're carrying against their wishes. 30.06 establishes a new trespassing statute for CHL holders that has specific requirements.

However, if you walk into a place, and you are asked to leave for any other reason than your concealed handgun, and you refuse to, you would be charged under 30.05.
Same thing is there was a "Members Only - All other entry prohibited" sign on the door of a place, or 'no trespassing' sign somewhere, and you entered anyways. That's a 30.05 violation.

[jimlongley]

Dallas Love Field is (partially) posted with these:



And they think it's valid.

[ScottDLS]

Dallas Love Field is (partially) posted with these:

(image)

And they think it's valid.

And it isn't which is likely why we haven't had the much wished for...and proverbial..."Test case".