HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
Flatland2D
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#1

Post by Flatland2D » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:23 pm

I don't know if this has been addressed before, so I hope this may still be relevant.

My employer verbally told me I can't carry at work. I assume 30.06 would mean that I can't carry at all on the property (including my car).

Now consider another employee, not licensed to carry and thus 30.06 does not apply to them.

HB1815 doesn't say anything about oral communication prohibiting carry. Could this person carry to work and leave their gun in their car? I'm a little rusty on my weapons and carry laws.
Texas CHL
Steyr M9
Kel-Tec P-3AT
Walther P22

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#2

Post by seamusTX » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:32 pm

Someone who is found to have a weapon on company property contrary to policy will be fired. Anyone who thinks differently, please get back to me with a documented case.

The key is being found. How do they find out? It usually involves showing off or some such foolishness.

Many companies will want to avoid the publicity of police involvement. If they don't, the police will arrest to defuse the situation. Probably no valid charge can be brought. Small comfort, especially after your wife is done talking to you about being fired. :smash:

- Jim


aardwolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas
Contact:

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#3

Post by aardwolf » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:35 pm

30.05 applies to someone without a CHL.
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.


Topic author
Flatland2D
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#4

Post by Flatland2D » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:38 pm

Don't get me wrong, I know someone in this situation would most assuredly be fired and it's no risk I'm willing to take, but I'm wondering the boundaries of car carry vs. unlawful carry by CHL.
Texas CHL
Steyr M9
Kel-Tec P-3AT
Walther P22


Topic author
Flatland2D
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Hill Country

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#5

Post by Flatland2D » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:40 pm

aardwolf wrote:30.05 applies to someone without a CHL.
That's what I'm looking for. I knew 30.05 says that the reason for trespass cannot be because of the handgun, but I forgot it also ties that to being a CHL.

Code: Select all

(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.
Texas CHL
Steyr M9
Kel-Tec P-3AT
Walther P22

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#6

Post by seamusTX » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:28 pm

Sorry, guys, but you are looking at fine points of the law. These things make a difference in court, but they have little to no weight when someone calls 911 about a man with a gun.

- Jim


aardwolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas
Contact:

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#7

Post by aardwolf » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:59 pm

seamusTX wrote:Sorry, guys, but you are looking at fine points of the law. These things make a difference in court, but they have little to no weight when someone calls 911 about a man with a gun.
I keep mine concealed and nobody has called 911 yet.
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17678
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#8

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:49 pm

If any verbal statement is made to the effect that guns aren't allowed on the property, then that's sufficient notice to a CHL for purposes of TPC §30.06 and it is sufficient notice to a non-CHL for purposes of TPC §30.05.

Now comes a rather interesting distinction. As we know, only TPC §30.06 can be used to prosecute a CHL for trespass, if the sole reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. If the handgun is stored in the truck of your car before driving onto the property, then you aren't carrying a handgun "on or about your person." The CHL could be fired, but not prosecuted under TPC §30.06. They can't be prosecuted under TPC §30.05, because it doesn't apply to a CHL, if the reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?

Chas.


mr.72
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1619
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 10:14 am

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#9

Post by mr.72 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:35 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?
Indeed it is. However, it is not surprising, in light of the rest of the law regarding carrying handguns. Does the whole Texas Penal Code have these wacky loops and twists?
non-conformist CHL holder

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#10

Post by seamusTX » Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:52 pm

That is an interesting twist.

The nagging question in my mind is how the police would handle a call from a private property owner who wants to file a charge against someone who was found to have a weapon there.

There were those cases at Weyerhauser and Conoco-Phillips where the employers got the police to bring out "drug and gun-sniffing" dogs and caught some employees with firearms in their vehicles that way.

I have to think that if it came to that point, that the police would arrest to defuse the situation. The DA might later find that no element of an offense has been committed, or a judge might dismiss the case. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have Charles defend you. ;-)

Any LEOs care to respond?

Mr.72, the law is full of inconsistencies like this. For example, Texas law does not explicitly define a minimum age for marriage. There are several different threshold ages, the youngest being 12. :shock:

- Jim

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17678
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#11

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:04 pm

mr.72 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?
Indeed it is. However, it is not surprising, in light of the rest of the law regarding carrying handguns. Does the whole Texas Penal Code have these wacky loops and twists?
There are some, but not as many as one might believe. Someone in Austin mentioned that it's time to do a complete rewrite of the Texas Penal Code to get everything in it's proper place. For example, combining the "off-limits" areas of hospitals, nursing homes, churches and meetings of governmental agencies, with the provision that this applies only if notice is given per TPC §30.06. I about swallowed my tongue and told him, if we do that, we'll lose the sign requirement!

Rewriting codes is a very difficult job, simply because it is a massive undertaking. But it also brings many things into focus and often is little fuzziness is better. :thumbs2:

Chas.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17678
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#12

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:08 pm

seamusTX wrote:That is an interesting twist.

The nagging question in my mind is how the police would handle a call from a private property owner who wants to file a charge against someone who was found to have a weapon there.

- Jim
I agree, plus TPC §30.05 makes the CHL holder issue a defense to prosecution, so an arrest could well be made and the CHL has to prove it in court. As a practical matter however, as long as the CHL doesn't refuse to leave the property, most LEOs aren't going to make the arrest. Most agencies will have the officer instruct the landowner to tell the person to leave in the LEO's presence. If they refuse to leave, they get arrested. If they do leave, many agencies will have their officers issue a "trespass warning" and that is logged into their system for some period of time so that future violations will result in an arrest.

Chas.

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#13

Post by seamusTX » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:31 pm

I understand that is how it works for ordinary trespass, like loitering in a mall. It's a rare LEO who doesn't get just a little bit alarmed when weapons are involved.

Then again, no one seems to be prosecuted under 30.06. It may result in arrests, but not convictions.

- Jim


FlynJay
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:58 am
Location: League City, TX

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#14

Post by FlynJay » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:36 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If any verbal statement is made to the effect that guns aren't allowed on the property, then that's sufficient notice to a CHL for purposes of TPC §30.06 and it is sufficient notice to a non-CHL for purposes of TPC §30.05.

Now comes a rather interesting distinction. As we know, only TPC §30.06 can be used to prosecute a CHL for trespass, if the sole reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. If the handgun is stored in the truck of your car before driving onto the property, then you aren't carrying a handgun "on or about your person." The CHL could be fired, but not prosecuted under TPC §30.06. They can't be prosecuted under TPC §30.05, because it doesn't apply to a CHL, if the reason for exclusion is the fact that the CHL has a handgun. Rather interesting little twist, isn't it?

Chas.
Now, since I don't have a trunk, would unloaded and placed in a locked container be considered "on or about your person"? I don't believe so.
This "twist" sounds like an equivalent to parking lot carry for CHL's.

I also don't know how they would find out you have a gun in your car. Powder residue sniffing dog, I go thru 200+ rounds a week, of course my truck smells like gunpowder.
IANAL, what I write should not be taken as Legal Advice.
"Why I may disagree with what you say, I’ll fight to the death your right to say it."


k5dmb
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: NW Houston (Willowbrook area)

Re: HB1815 vs. 30.06 question

#15

Post by k5dmb » Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:54 pm

If a CHL holder left the gun in their car (let's say in the console) and a 'gun-sniffing' dog detected it, it wouldn't be 'on or about your person' so neither 30.05 (since he's a CHL holder) nor 30.06 would apply. Wouldn't they need to catch you in the car?

Of course, you're still potentially fired.

(Grasshopper waits for enlightenment)
David
NRA Life Member
Semper Fi

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”