Please help clarify my understanding of 30.06

[Hoosier Daddy]

30.06 is for all type of notices: Verbal, Written (hand passed card) or 30.06 notice that we see at some hospitals. All fall under the same 30.06.

That's right. If they say it to your face that has no more or less weight than a 30.06 sign on the wall.

[Trddunn]

Man you guys are a wealth of knowledge! I learn something new every time I log in.

[Scott Farkus]

I missed this the first time through, but I see now that "government meetings" are treated like hospitals and churches in that they aren't automatically restricted but can be posted.

I don't see any way that the City of Austin is getting away with posting a 30.06 sign at the entrances to City Hall. The language says "at any meeting of a government entity", not "on the premises of..." like it does for court buildings, racetracks and such. I could accept a 30.06 sign at the door of the City Council chambers while they were in session but I cannot for the life of me understand how they're getting away with one posted at the entrances to the entire City Hall building 24/7.

Is there anybody at DPS or the AG's office that takes questions or complaints about things like this? It's a blatant violation of state law, taking place barely a mile from the Capitol.

[RPB]

I missed this the first time through, but I see now that "government meetings" are treated like hospitals and churches in that they aren't automatically restricted but can be posted.

I don't see any way that the City of Austin is getting away with posting a 30.06 sign at the entrances to City Hall. The language says "at any meeting of a government entity", not "on the premises of..." like it does for court buildings, racetracks and such. I could accept a 30.06 sign at the door of the City Council chambers while they were in session but I cannot for the life of me understand how they're getting away with one posted at the entrances to the entire City Hall building 24/7.

Is there anybody at DPS or the AG's office that takes questions or complaints about things like this? It's a blatant violation of state law, taking place barely a mile from the Capitol.

CITY of Austin thinks it's the DISTRICT of Columbia
An entity Independent of everyone else's laws/rules not subject to the laws of the entity immediately over it, like a rebellious child

I was thinking about moving there, till I looked at The Kingdom of (only a couple examples of a nutty government and people who allow them to be)
1) "Boycott Arizona for not wanting criminals here illegally and not wanting taxpayers to pay all the bills criminals incur"
2) "You must buy your plastic bags to line your trash can, we'll no longer allow stores to give them to you."

I decided not to live there, it's hard enough to visit there without laughing and pointing sometimes, I almost went shopping there today, decided I could get what I needed in San Antonio or Temple later or next month.... or in Lubbock when I go in June.

[Keith B]

I missed this the first time through, but I see now that "government meetings" are treated like hospitals and churches in that they aren't automatically restricted but can be posted.

I don't see any way that the City of Austin is getting away with posting a 30.06 sign at the entrances to City Hall. The language says "at any meeting of a government entity", not "on the premises of..." like it does for court buildings, racetracks and such. I could accept a 30.06 sign at the door of the City Council chambers while they were in session but I cannot for the life of me understand how they're getting away with one posted at the entrances to the entire City Hall building 24/7.

Is there anybody at DPS or the AG's office that takes questions or complaints about things like this? It's a blatant violation of state law, taking place barely a mile from the Capitol.

It really isn't a violation to post a 30.06 sign; it's just not legally enforceable unless posted for a government meeting. And then I would say it would need to be posted at the entrance to the meeting room and NOT just at the main building door (no case law on that, just common sense.)

As for the sign, you can do one of two things for this sign: 1. Ignore it and go about your business and just watch for government meetings and other statutorily off-limits areas. 2. Write a letter to your City Councilman or the Mayor about the non-compliant posting, ask him to check with the City Attorney on it's validity and ask them to remove it.

[Scott Farkus]

I understand the sentiment to ignore the sign, especially if there's no City Council meeting going on, but it's not like walking into an improperly posted grocery store. The City has metal detectors and security guards at each entrance and usually, since it's City Hall, there are uniformed police officers walking around for one reason or another and quite often TV cameras. I know this because my mother-in-law works there and I drop my daughter off with her two or three times a month.

If you try to carry in Austin City Hall, you will in all likelihood be taken down in a matter of seconds. I don't have the time or money to be the test case. It seems like there should be somebody at the state that we could at least report this to and have them investigate. Asking the mayor or City Attorney about it is a complete waste of time - I guarantee you these people will not take that sign down or implement a bypass lane like they do at the Capitol unless somebody above their pay grade forces them to.

[C-dub]

One would think that after all the fuss over carrying in the state capital that they would have gotten the hint.

[Mike1951]

If you do not believe me call DPS and ask for yourself.

Is there anybody at DPS or the AG's office that takes questions or complaints about things like this? It's a blatant violation of state law, taking place barely a mile from the Capitol.

Individuals have no standing to obtain AG opinions, only agencies or officials.

There have been numerous forum posts about the DPS attorney and DPS instructors offering opinions on the intent of the signage and that a non-valid 30.06 still provides notice.

Not sure why anyone would contact them for reliable information.

[Mike1951]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51394&hilit=dps+att ... 05#p633578" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wgoforth received this response from DPS after almost three weeks. It is actually informative, though not following the law.

I received a response from the Sargent today and appreciate his taking time.

In regards to Signage, he writes:
" In the CHL New Instructor School, the questions that are always asked about this sign is, “What if the sign does not meet the established parameters? Do I still have to obey it?” “Can I enter the business anyway if the sign doesn’t meet the required standards such as the print is too small or it doesn’t say exactly what the law requires?” In the recent school you attended, these same types of questions were asked and the answer given was not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Even though the law is clear and precise on what the 30.06 sign should look like, we all know, there are many improper, or slightly altered, or ‘gun buster’ signs posted throughout the State. Both CHL Instructors and CHL holders would like a clear and precise ‘yes or no’ confirmation as to whether it is ok to disregard those improper 30.06 signs. The role of the CHL Instructor, and the Department’s Instructors to is to present the law; however, it is not your role nor the Department’s role to provide interpretation or to give legal advice. If I were to give you a simple ‘yes or no’ answer then it could be construed as giving you legal advice. Having said that, the law does provide some defense for CHL holders should they choose to ignore or bypass an improper 30.06. As you mentioned in your email, the Department’s instructor in your class did correctly state that even an improper sign could be considered effective notice. It is not up to you, as a CHL instructor, or the Department to determine if effective notice was given. This is a decision to be made by the local law enforcement officer and/or local prosecutors and eventually the court. This generally leads to the next question which is “Can a CHL holder be arrested for passing an improper 30.06 sign?” The answer is, ”Yes, they could be.” Will the CHL holder be arrested? I don’t know. As stated earlier, there is some defense to prosecution if the sign did not meet the standard set forth by the penal code. However, to get to that point, it probably means the CHL holder has already been introduced to a pair of silver bracelets (arrested). It initially lies upon the law enforcement officer’s judgment to, first, arrest the person. It then falls upon the local prosecutor to decide to take the case. If the prosecutor does accept the case, it is sent to the courts, and it will be up to the judge/jury to make the decision. Now, for all those who have sat through the CHL New Instructor class, you have never heard the instructors say,” If the sign doesn’t meet the criteria, then you can pass it.” In class, we state the law, we state the requirements in the various statutes including the Penal Code and we reference the Administrative Rules for CHL. Most importantly, we also state the repercussions which might happen in different situations, such as passing an improper 30.06 sign. We tell instructors they should think about whether they could, with ease of conscience, tell their students, “If the sign does not meet the criteria, then you can pass it”, considering that some local jurisdictions could consider an improper 30.06 sign as effective notice. We suggest you should point them to the law, tell them the repercussions of what could happen if they did pass it, and I leave it up ‘to them’ to make that decision. If ‘they’ decided to pass that improper sign, then it is ‘their’ responsibility. As you can see, this law is complicated and because of so much room for different interpretation by local jurisdictions, we cannot provide a simple ‘yes or no’ answer. "

[speedsix]

...the law is crystal clear and easily understood...the problem comes when either the CHO or the LEO or any officers of the court decide they want to "interpret" it rather than obey it...great pains were taken to word the law exactly as it is so that CHLs could carry in more places...to fear arrest when an unenforceable sign is posted is about as necessary as cowering before a purple stop sign...the law IS THE LAW...for our instruction AND PROTECTION...

[Katygunnut]

I don't have the time or money to be the test case.

Interestingly enough, this is my back-up plan in case I am ever laid off. See if they are willing to enforce a clearly illegitimate law and then sue everyone involved. Should be able to get a decent hourly wage out of it even after paying my attorneys their cut.

[Glenn61]

This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

[Big Tuna]

This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

They should be able to post meaningless signs on their property but if a cop unlawfully enforces it maybe he should have to go through the academy again and pass the tests before he can carry a badge and gun.

[barstoolguru]

This whole thing just goes to show you how backwards the State of Texas is when it comes to stupid things like enforcing compliance with 30.06 signage. If these people are going to be allowed to post fake signs--then law enforcement should be told not to take them seriously. Maybe the state should make these people/businesses apply (and pay a good amount of money) for a license to legally put the sign on their store window--just like we have to apply, get refresher training and pay to get/keep a license.

in the state of Texas you can refuse anyone service for no reason at all so if they post a sign and it says they don't want guns in their place of business that is their choice. If they don't post the proper signage the only thing they can do is ask you to leave

don't spend your money where you and your gun is not welcome

[Oldgringo]

If a business, office, church, hospital has any kind of 30.06 sign posted, they don't want your business. It's as simple as that. Why belabor the wording?

A 'gunbuster" sign doesn't apply to a Texas CH licensee IN Texas. That sign does apply in some other states.

Next question?