Sign at entrance to property (not door)

[jmra]

If that is true, then the gun buster symbol that is often found on the same sign as the 30.06 language (just above the words) would prevent carry under MPA. Can you provide a link to the portion of code that keeps me from parking in a parking lot under MPA if there is a gun buster sign at the entrance to the parking lot? Not doubting you, just want to make sure we are all on the same page.

A lot of people think a gunbuster sign is 30.05 notice. IIRC, that was the impetus for 30.06 back in the 90s.

Don't take this wrong, but I'm not interested in what people think. I'm interested in the law. Gun buster signs did stop CC carry into buildings prior to 30.06, but with MPA we are not talking about entering buildings.

[gringo pistolero]

Don't take this wrong, but I'm not interested in what people think.

Well, OK then.


For everyone else, ask yourself if a "NO HUNTING" sign only applies to hunters trespassing inside buildings.

[jmra]

Don't take this wrong, but I'm not interested in what people think.

Well, OK then.

I was afraid that would be taken wrong. Just trying to get to actual law which is what is important. No offense intended.

[thetexan]

I can't find any case law on this subject so it probably hasn't been appealed. That doesn't mean someone hasn't been found guilty for ignoring a technically incorrect sign at the lower trial level and just not appealed it. At the appellate level a point of appeal based on a technically incorrect sign would probably win the day because the language of the law defining the sign is utterly unambiguous.

Tex

[hillfighter]

A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Both 30.05 and 30.06 refer to property so trespass notice doesn't have to be on doors and isn't limited to buildings.

[MeMelYup]

A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

Both 30.05 and 30.06 refer to property so trespass notice doesn't have to be on doors and isn't limited to buildings.

The parking lot is not covered.

[nightmare]

The parking lot is not covered.

Whether it's covered or open air doesn't matter. It's their property.

[MeMelYup]

The parking lot is not covered.

Whether it's covered or open air doesn't matter. It's their property.

30.05 or 30.06 does not apply as long as the firearm does not leave your vehicle.

[nightmare]

Where does the trespass law say it doesn't apply to vehicles?

[Pawpaw]

Where does the trespass law say it doesn't apply to vehicles?

It doesn't, however PC §46.02 makes it legal for anyone to keep a firearm in their vehicle, whether they have a CHL or not.

Charles has said many times that it was never the legislature's intent that obtaining a CHL would cause you to lose any other protections of the law.

[MeMelYup]

Where does the trespass law say it doesn't apply to vehicles?

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.
While in your vehicle a person is carrying under MPA. 30.06 does not apply while under MPA.
As long as the firearm does not exit the vehicle MPA applies.

[sjfcontrol]

[sjfcontrol]

Where does the trespass law say it doesn't apply to vehicles?

It doesn't, however PC §46.02 makes it legal for anyone to keep a firearm in their vehicle, whether they have a CHL or not.

Charles has said many times that it was never the legislature's intent that obtaining a CHL would cause you to lose any other protections of the law.

And yet you obviously do, since you have to display your license when carrying and asked for ID while in a car, but don't if you're carrying unlicensed and in a car.

[thetexan]

A friend of mine recently posted this pic at the entrance to the new Scott & White hospital in College Station.

Assuming there is a similar sign at all of the entrances onto the property, is this a legal 30.06 sign? In other words, can it be at the entrance to the property, or does it have to be on DOORS?

[ Image ]

I had a person ask me about this and this is my response.

As to the posting of the 30.06 sign...PC 30.06(c)(3)(B)(iii) "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public." I can find no unique legal definition of the term 'conspicuous' so tenets and canons of statutory interpretation would indicate that the word conspicuous would take on its usual, common usage. The Oxford dictionary defines conspicuous as '...standing out so as to be clearly visible' and 'attracting notice or attention'. This sign in the photograph, I would argue, is displayed in a conspicuous manner and clearly visible to the public.

As to what effect this posting of a 30.06 sign has we turn to PC 30.06(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 received notice that:(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. The sign appears to meet the standards described in PC 30.06(c)(3)(B) with particularly note that the sign is posted on the property. I assume that the other required element of the statute giving it force, that is, not having effective consent, is present.

Now let's turn to PC 46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER(b)(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;" Paragraph (f)(3) ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area." (I'm assuming here that this hospital is licensed under Chapter 241).

The question becomes how do these two statutes relate to each other, if at all, in determining the extent and scope of the of the legitimate prohibition to concealed handguns asserted by the posting of this sign.

PC 46.035 when taking (b)(4) along with (f)(3) and adding the (i) exception essentially states this..."if you are a CHL holder and are carrying a concealed handgun, nevermind, this prohibition that says you can't enter into a building or portion of a building of this hospital, doesn't apply to you, unless we properly notify you under PC30.06." Since this prohibition only applies to a building or portion of a building, then the exception spoken of in paragraph (i) only refers to the prohibition against concealed carry in a building or portion of a building.

The area covered by PC46.035 (b)(4) and its associated conditional exception in (i) only deals with a building or portion of a building. If the hospital posted a 30.06 notification conspicuously at the building or portion of a building itself the meaning would be clear and we would associate the physical location of the sign with the physical location of the prohibition spoken of, that being a building or portion of a building and we wouldn't be debating the meaning here. The issue seems to be confused when the sign is placed apart from the building or portion of a building.

The sign, as posted, arguably, provides a prohibition against concealed carry as per 30.06 for the entire property which includes the buildings and portions of buildings and what's left of the property, that is, the rest of the entire campus. Since the entire campus encompasses the buildings and portions of buildings as well as the yards and public or private driveways, streets, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking areas within the campus, the posted sign prohibits carriage of concealed handguns on the entire campus. The portion of the campus covered under 46.035, buildings and portions of buildings, is not excluded under the exception in paragraph (i) since proper, conspicuous notice is given by this sign, which asserts notice over the entire campus and therefore nullifies the exception to the CHL holder in that paragraph since the entire campus includes the area covered by that exception. The rest of the campus, (which has no statute that deals with non 46.035(f)(3) areas) is therefore also covered under and encompassed by PC30.06 since the sign gives notice, apparently, for the entire property.

And PC30.06 only uses the word "property". To assume that the sign posted at the entrance to a campus does not mean to include the entire campus, or property, in its prohibition would require some mitigating statute or defining exception, and I find none.

It would seem that as the area that posted 30.06 signage encompasses increases so does the area of prohibition. In short, can you think of any situation where the posting of a proper (in terms of size, contrast, and wording) 30.06 sign is nullified by another statute, thus allowing the carry of a concealed handgun despite its posting? Stated another way, can you think of any situation where you can disregard the posting of a proper 30.06 sign because another statute gives you superseding authority to do so (notwithstanding all of the peace officer, judicial officer, and security officer exceptions)?

I know of only one, PC 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." A proper 30.06 sign posted on governmental owned or leased property would seem to have no prohibitive effect for a CHL holder if he is not otherwise prohibited by another statute.


If it were me, and it is, I would not carry on that property under these conditions, having been properly and conspicuously served notice under PC 30.06 not to carry on that property.

tex