Verbal and Written Notice(s) on private property

[Keith B]

Well, true, and sorry for the misinformation. I was assuming more like a shopping center parking lot that wasn't his property.

If he owns the shopping center OR is in control of the property (property manger, etc.) then they can set the guidelines and authorize someone to enforce the rules on no firearms allowed in the parking lot.

Sure, but he can't prosecute a CHL if they leave gun in the car.

How so? If they post both a 'No Guns' sign and a 30.06, then MPA and CHL are both prohibited and they could prosecute.

30.05 has a DEFENSE for a CHL if the reason for exclusion was that person was carrying a handgun and HAS (not carrying under authority of) a CHL. 30.06 only prohibits if you're carrying under authority of, which you're not if gun remains in car.

I think you might have a hard time getting that technicality to fly.

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 you say are carrying the handgun then you would be under the authority of your CHL and the 30.06 sign you passed is your prohibition. If not carrying on your body and it is in the car under MPA, license or not, 30.05 applies.

I do see what you are saying, but since there is no case law I think the 'defense to prosecution' would be overridden and they would prosecute you.

[ScottDLS]

Well, true, and sorry for the misinformation. I was assuming more like a shopping center parking lot that wasn't his property.

If he owns the shopping center OR is in control of the property (property manger, etc.) then they can set the guidelines and authorize someone to enforce the rules on no firearms allowed in the parking lot.

Sure, but he can't prosecute a CHL if they leave gun in the car.

How so? If they post both a 'No Guns' sign and a 30.06, then MPA and CHL are both prohibited and they could prosecute.

30.05 has a DEFENSE for a CHL if the reason for exclusion was that person was carrying a handgun and HAS (not carrying under authority of) a CHL. 30.06 only prohibits if you're carrying under authority of, which you're not if gun remains in car.

I think you might have a hard time getting that technicality to fly.

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 you say are carrying the handgun then you would be under the authority of your CHL and the 30.06 sign you passed is your prohibition. If not carrying on your body and it is in the car under MPA, license or not, 30.05 applies.

I do see what you are saying, but since there is no case law I think the 'defense to prosecution' would be overridden and they would prosecute you.

I may "carry" a gun concealed "on or about my person" in my car without violating PC 46.02, so I do not require the authority of my CHL, any more than I need it in my home.

A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION, if raised by the defendant at trial, must be refuted BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT by the prosecution. I believe they would find it difficult to refute the DEFENSE to 30.05 if I had a CHL, was carrying a handgun, and the sign was a non-30.06 NO GUNS sign.

Again, if the argument is that 30.06 applies, then it would apply to an ON DUTY (or off duty) LEO who happened to have a CHL, since there is no exception in 30.06 for LEO's, except that you must be CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY of CHL.

[Mel]

This whole thing is confusing me. As I understand the OP, this situation is in St Louis, MO.
30.06 is a Texas penal code.
Am I missing something?

[howdy]

This whole thing is confusing me. As I understand the OP, this situation is in St Louis, MO.
30.06 is a Texas penal code.
Am I missing something?

I think he was referring to the EVENTS (Mike Brown) happening in the St. Louis area.

[Mel]

This whole thing is confusing me. As I understand the OP, this situation is in St Louis, MO.
30.06 is a Texas penal code.
Am I missing something?

I think he was referring to the EVENTS (Mike Brown) happening in the St. Louis area.

I see! I was reading it as if the concerned guy was IN St. Louis.
Thanks for the clarification.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well, true, and sorry for the misinformation. I was assuming more like a shopping center parking lot that wasn't his property.

If he owns the shopping center OR is in control of the property (property manger, etc.) then they can set the guidelines and authorize someone to enforce the rules on no firearms allowed in the parking lot.

Sure, but he can't prosecute a CHL if they leave gun in the car.

How so? If they post both a 'No Guns' sign and a 30.06, then MPA and CHL are both prohibited and they could prosecute.

30.05 has a DEFENSE for a CHL if the reason for exclusion was that person was carrying a handgun and HAS (not carrying under authority of) a CHL. 30.06 only prohibits if you're carrying under authority of, which you're not if gun remains in car.

I think you might have a hard time getting that technicality to fly.

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 you say are carrying the handgun then you would be under the authority of your CHL and the 30.06 sign you passed is your prohibition. If not carrying on your body and it is in the car under MPA, license or not, 30.05 applies.

I do see what you are saying, but since there is no case law I think the 'defense to prosecution' would be overridden and they would prosecute you.

I may "carry" a gun concealed "on or about my person" in my car without violating PC 46.02, so I do not require the authority of my CHL, any more than I need it in my home.

Correct. The case law is clear, a gun anywhere in your motor vehicle where it is easily accessible is "on or about the person." If the sole reason for excluding someone from private property is the fact that they have a handgun, then TPC §30.05 is not a basis for arrest and prosecution. Since one no longer needs a CHL to have a handgun in their motor vehicle, then one is not carrying under the authority of their license making TPC §30.06 inapplicable. This was an unintended consequence of passing the Motorist Protection Act and to my knowledge, there's no case law on point.

As a practical matter, no one is going to tell every driver entering a parking lot that "no guns are allowed." They aren't even going to hand out flyers to that effect either.

As for searching a car, well that is problematic to say the least. If someone opens my car door without my permission while I'm in it, then TPC §9.32(b)(1) could cause them to have very bad day. If they tell me to open the door for a search, I'm going to presume it's a pretext for a hijacking and I won't open the door.

This guy's plan may well be the most irresponsible garbage I've seen outside of New Jersey.

Chas.

[Keith B]

Correct. The case law is clear, a gun anywhere in your motor vehicle where it is easily accessible is "on or about the person." If the sole reason for excluding someone from private property is the fact that they have a handgun, then TPC §30.05 is not a basis for arrest and prosecution. Since one no longer needs a CHL to have a handgun in their motor vehicle, then one is not carrying under the authority of their license making TPC §30.06 inapplicable. This was an unintended consequence of passing the Motorist Protection Act and to my knowledge, there's no case law on point.

Chas.

So Charles, what you are saying is that even with a 30.05 AND a 30.06 sign in the parking lot that the defense to prosecution provided in 36.05(f)(2) overrides the 30.05 for a CHL even with the 30.06 sign posted?

[Cedar Park Dad]

Well, true, and sorry for the misinformation. I was assuming more like a shopping center parking lot that wasn't his property.

If he owns the shopping center OR is in control of the property (property manger, etc.) then they can set the guidelines and authorize someone to enforce the rules on no firearms allowed in the parking lot.

Sure, but he can't prosecute a CHL if they leave gun in the car.

How so? If they post both a 'No Guns' sign and a 30.06, then MPA and CHL are both prohibited and they could prosecute.

30.05 has a DEFENSE for a CHL if the reason for exclusion was that person was carrying a handgun and HAS (not carrying under authority of) a CHL. 30.06 only prohibits if you're carrying under authority of, which you're not if gun remains in car.

I think you might have a hard time getting that technicality to fly.

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 you say are carrying the handgun then you would be under the authority of your CHL and the 30.06 sign you passed is your prohibition. If not carrying on your body and it is in the car under MPA, license or not, 30.05 applies.

I do see what you are saying, but since there is no case law I think the 'defense to prosecution' would be overridden and they would prosecute you.

I may "carry" a gun concealed "on or about my person" in my car without violating PC 46.02, so I do not require the authority of my CHL, any more than I need it in my home.

Correct. The case law is clear, a gun anywhere in your motor vehicle where it is easily accessible is "on or about the person." If the sole reason for excluding someone from private property is the fact that they have a handgun, then TPC §30.05 is not a basis for arrest and prosecution. Since one no longer needs a CHL to have a handgun in their motor vehicle, then one is not carrying under the authority of their license making TPC §30.06 inapplicable. This was an unintended consequence of passing the Motorist Protection Act and to my knowledge, there's no case law on point.

As a practical matter, no one is going to tell every driver entering a parking lot that "no guns are allowed." They aren't even going to hand out flyers to that effect either.

As for searching a car, well that is problematic to say the least. If someone opens my car door without my permission while I'm in it, then TPC §9.32(b)(1) could cause them to have very bad day. If they tell me to open the door for a search, I'm going to presume it's a pretext for a hijacking and I won't open the door.

This guy's plan may well be the most irresponsible garbage I've seen outside of New Jersey.

Chas.

Chas is the man. Someone tell the Wife they are going to search their car, they better start running, because she's going to be running people people down while calling 911 and screaming CARJACKING.

[Jim Beaux]

Explain to the genius you work for that amid the several businesses in Ferguson that were looted and burned was a liquor store that was not harmed because the owners stood guard with guns.

Tell him to call me if he has any questions.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Correct. The case law is clear, a gun anywhere in your motor vehicle where it is easily accessible is "on or about the person." If the sole reason for excluding someone from private property is the fact that they have a handgun, then TPC §30.05 is not a basis for arrest and prosecution. Since one no longer needs a CHL to have a handgun in their motor vehicle, then one is not carrying under the authority of their license making TPC §30.06 inapplicable. This was an unintended consequence of passing the Motorist Protection Act and to my knowledge, there's no case law on point.

Chas.

So Charles, what you are saying is that even with a 30.05 AND a 30.06 sign in the parking lot that the defense to prosecution provided in 36.05(f)(2) overrides the 30.05 for a CHL even with the 30.06 sign posted?

That's what the express language of the two Code provisions state. As I noted however, there's no case law and it's obvious that the courts aren't going to like the result. But TPC §30.05 can't be used to bar entry by a armed CHL if the only reason to bar entry is the fact that they are armed. TPC §30.06 applies only when a person is carrying a handgun under the authority of their CHL and a CHL is not required to have a handgun in their car. I wrote HB1815 (Motorist Protection Act) and I never gave TPC §§30.05 &30.06 a second thought. If I had, I'd have still written it exactly as I did.

Chas.

[MeMelYup]

Congratulations on having such an advantageous accident.

[Keith B]

Congratulations on having such an advantageous accident.

I am glad it turned out that way. I always thought that once you were carrying in car and claimed you were carrying under MPA that the CHL defense to prosecution of 30.05 would be out. Once reading it, as ScottDLS states, it is just if you have one, not carrying under authority. Thanks for the clarification.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Congratulations on having such an advantageous accident.

I am glad it turned out that way. I always thought that once you were carrying in car and claimed you were carrying under MPA that the CHL defense to prosecution of 30.05 would be out. Once reading it, as ScottDLS states, it is just if you have one, not carrying under authority. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, the big caveat -- there's no case law! So this is just "Cotton on the law" which isn't "Corbin on Contracts." (A little lawyer insider joke.)

Chas.

[johncanfield]

Perhaps the property owner should have some education regarding the fact that signs don't deter crime and criminals . What an idiot.

[Keith B]

Congratulations on having such an advantageous accident.

I am glad it turned out that way. I always thought that once you were carrying in car and claimed you were carrying under MPA that the CHL defense to prosecution of 30.05 would be out. Once reading it, as ScottDLS states, it is just if you have one, not carrying under authority. Thanks for the clarification.

Again, the big caveat -- there's no case law! So this is just "Cotton on the law" which isn't "Corbin on Contracts." (A little lawyer insider joke.)

Chas.

I understand. However, I would use this as my defense argument if I was caught in the situtation and was the test case.

And I always questioned Corbin 'cause he was a YALE man.