30.07 requirement for all entrances to be posted

[Charles L. Cotton]

As I am sure you all have seen, a lot of 30.07 locations are beginning to pop up and be posted at texas3006.com.

Just to be sure that I classify the entry's validity properly, 30.07 signs have to be posted at every entrance for the restriction to be valid, correct?

Are there any attorney interpretations of PC 30.07, and specifically this requirement, available yet? Would hate for someone to get in trouble because a location (HEB for example!) is posted but not at every entrance, so they carry on in....

There are no AG opinions on TPC §30.07. The Code does require a sign at every entrance. However, I could see an argument by a DA that a person entering through an entrance that does not have a sign has not committed a violation, but one entering through a door with a sign has violated §30.07.

While the language is different, I think that TPC §30.06 and §30.07 are operationally the same. If a person enters a building through a door that does not have 30.06 sign, but there is a sign on another entrance, a prosecutor would have to prove that the CHL knew of the sign on the other entrance.

This is just "Cotton on the Law" so don't make any rash decisions!

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

In previous discussions on this topic, but pre-30.07, the consensus seems to be that the signage must be "conspicuously displayed", but that doesn't necessarily mean at the entrances. For instance, if there was a compliant sign prominently displayed on an interior wall, the CHL holder commits no offense by entering, but upon seeing the sign after entering, has then received effective notice and must leave.

Here is the wording of 30.06 effective 1/1/16:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN.

• (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
  • (1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
    (2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
  (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
  (c) In this section:
  • (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
    (2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
    (3) "Written communication" means:
    • (A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
      (B) a sign posted on the property that:
      • (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
        (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
        (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
  (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.
  (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.

If I'm not mistaken, 30.07 has virtually the same language, except with regard to openly carried handguns. As Charles says, they are operationally the same.

[Keith B]

30.07 specifically has the requirement for each entrance

Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder openly carries the 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.
(f) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the handgun was carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

However, I am like Charles, and believe if you went into a posted entrance, even if others were not posted, then you would have a hard time getting a defense that you had not been given notice, no matter what the statute says.

[stingeragent]

I would have to assume they added the every entrance thing with 30.07 because 30.06 was too vague on that point. Not sure why they didn't clean up 30.06 some at the same time.

[puma guy]

As I am sure you all have seen, a lot of 30.07 locations are beginning to pop up and be posted at texas3006.com.

Just to be sure that I classify the entry's validity properly, 30.07 signs have to be posted at every entrance for the restriction to be valid, correct?

Are there any attorney interpretations of PC 30.07, and specifically this requirement, available yet? Would hate for someone to get in trouble because a location (HEB for example!) is posted but not at every entrance, so they carry on in....

There are no AG opinions on TPC §30.07. The Code does require a sign at every entrance. However, I could see an argument by a DA that a person entering through an entrance that does not have a sign has not committed a violation, but one entering through a door with a sign has violated §30.07.

While the language is different, I think that TPC §30.06 and §30.07 are operationally the same. If a person enters a building through a door that does not have 30.06 sign, but there is a sign on another entrance, a prosecutor would have to prove that the CHL knew of the sign on the other entrance.

This is just "Cotton on the Law" so don't make any rash decisions!

Chas.

[Glockster]

What Chas. says makes perfect sense to me. Add to that, if I pass an entrance that IS posted, how would I know at that point of entry that not all entrances were properly posted? If it is posted, I'd stop, not enter and then go check other entrances to see if they've not completely complied. That would make no sense.

[Abraham]

Presumably, from the previous posts, if a business doesn't post 30.06 signs at every entrance and you enter through a non-posted entrance, you would likely not be prosecuted if you're discovered to be carrying?

Yes?

No?

[mojo84]

Presumably, from the previous posts, if a business doesn't post 30.06 signs at every entrance and you enter through a non-posted entrance, you would likely not be prosecuted if you're discovered to be carrying?

Yes?

No?

It could be argued effective notice wasn't given since there wasn't a sign conspicuously posted at the entrance.

[Abraham]

mojo84,

Isn't that the case at one of the malls, Katy Mills I think...?

That is, some of the entrances to the mall itself are posted 30.06, while others remain un-posted?

[ELB]

Presumably, from the previous posts, if a business doesn't post 30.06 signs at every entrance and you enter through a non-posted entrance, you would likely not be prosecuted if you're discovered to be carrying?

Yes?

No?

Maybe. Maybe not.

[mojo84]

mojo84,

Isn't that the case at one of the malls, Katy Mills I think...?

That is, some of the entrances to the mall itself are posted 30.06, while others remain un-posted?

One may be prosecuted but I believe it may be a defense to the prosecution.

I'm not sure about that mall specifically. I do know that was the case at a hospital in The Woodlands. I had to go there quite a few times. The first time I went, there was no sign at the entrance I went in. Therefore, I carried. The next day I had to park near a different entrance. As I was approaching the entrance, I noticed a near compliant sign. i returned my gun to the car and did my best to make it appear I had forgotten something.