Legal to carry when not all doors have signs?

[tbryanh]

I have seen a similar topic discussed here once before, but I cannot find the thread.

I work on the 3rd shift (grave shift) alone in a large factory doing maintenance on the production equipment.

The shipping and receiving door is posted with 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but the door to the main lobby has no signs. My employee handbook does not mention anything about firearms or weapons, and my supervisor has never mentioned any rule about firearms or weapons in the workplace.

Being all alone all night in a big factory in a big city, I would like to carry concealed as I normally do everywhere else I go. Am I in the clear to carry?

[cmgee67]

I thought all entryways had to be posted with proper signage and in plain view. Seems to me if some are posted and some are not then you are ok. But i would wait for somebody who is a little more versed on this than me. Sometimes the don't ask don't tell policy is best. If your that concerned talk to your boss maybe you can convince him to take the signs down. But I'd hate to see you lose your job if your found out. Hope it all works out keep us updated.

[Skiprr]

PC §30.07 has a requirement that a valid sign be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property." PC §30.06, however, makes no mention of entrances or number of signs; it says simply that a sign must be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

IANAL, but the consensus in past discussions has been that, for concealed carry, once you've seen a valid 30.06 sign that you have been given effective notice. A building might have five entrances and a sign at only one of them. If you never use that entrance and have never seen the sign, then you have not been given notice; once you do see the sign, you have been given notice and it doesn't matter if you never use that entrance again.

This may be a place for some language cleanup by the 2017 legislature. It would make sense to revise §30.06 so that portion of the language mirrors §30.07.

[Take Down Sicko]

Just wondering if you can carry in all Texas Walmarts?

[Keith B]

Just wondering if you can carry in all Texas Walmarts?

I have never seen a WalMart posted with 30.06 or 30.07 signs. If open carrying, they may ask to see your LTC, due to being required to make sure the person is not carrying illegally and jeopardizing the stores liquor license, but no other restrictions that I am aware of.

[C-dub]

PC §30.07 has a requirement that a valid sign be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property." PC §30.06, however, makes no mention of entrances or number of signs; it says simply that a sign must be "displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

IANAL, but the consensus in past discussions has been that, for concealed carry, once you've seen a valid 30.06 sign that you have been given effective notice. A building might have five entrances and a sign at only one of them. If you never use that entrance and have never seen the sign, then you have not been given notice; once you do see the sign, you have been given notice and it doesn't matter if you never use that entrance again.

This may be a place for some language cleanup by the 2017 legislature. It would make sense to revise §30.06 so that portion of the language mirrors §30.07.

with everything and have a couple of caveats or things to add.

One may be the location of the signs at the OP's facility. OP, are those signs in a location that can be clearly seen by the public? I ask because I seem to remember a situation where the only signs posted at one of our forum members' girlfriend's or wife's employer were only posted in the employees' break room. That sign was clearly visible and posted in a conspicuous manner for every employee to see, but that's not what the law says. Therefore, even if seen by those employees it still didn't count as effective notice.

Secondly, IMHO, I'm not one that subscribes to the if you haven't seen it then you haven't been given effective notice. I'm probably wrong on that since, IIRC, Charles has agreed with that theory. However, the problem is that it hasn't been tested in court yet.

[C-dub]

Just wondering if you can carry in all Texas Walmarts?

Why bring Wallyworld into this? Did I miss something? I can't see that the OP said anything about it.

[RoyGBiv]

If you saw the sign, you've been notified.

Deal with it.

[Javier730]

Just wondering if you can carry in all Texas Walmarts?

I have never seen a WalMart posted with 30.06 or 30.07 signs. If open carrying, they may ask to see your LTC, due to being required to make sure the person is not carrying illegally and jeopardizing the stores liquor license, but no other restrictions that I am aware of.

The Walmart on Bandera here in San Antonio has a 30.07 sign.

[thetexan]

I have seen a similar topic discussed here once before, but I cannot find the thread.

I work on the 3rd shift (grave shift) alone in a large factory doing maintenance on the production equipment.

The shipping and receiving door is posted with 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but the door to the main lobby has no signs. My employee handbook does not mention anything about firearms or weapons, and my supervisor has never mentioned any rule about firearms or weapons in the workplace.

Being all alone all night in a big factory in a big city, I would like to carry concealed as I normally do everywhere else I go. Am I in the clear to carry?

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility. There is no statutory requirement concerning 30.06 as to the location of its posting on the property for which the sign is intended to effect prohibition. There IS a requirement for 30.07 at all entrances, still with the conspicuousness and visibility requirements. And again there is not statutory requirement that you actually see the sign to be notified. In fact your seeing the sign is not in the definition of "notification" which states "(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if.....IF......IF....(read it again)....IF...."(B) a sign [is] 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.

You are no more required to see the sign to have been notified that you are required to see the speed limit sign on the highway that you missed because there was an eighteen wheeler between you and the sign as you passed it. You have been notified.

Now as to the question of whether an entrance that does not have a required 30.07 sign constitutes a failure to notify...I believe it does. Although I think it will take going to the appeals process to verify that. The way the 30.07 statute is written the clause "...(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property....is part of the notification definition given in the section. You have been notified when all of those things are in place. The implication is that if any of those things are missing notification has not occurred. You can no more be "notified" as per definition by a sign that is NOT conspicuously posted that you can by a failure to properly post a 30.07 sign at ALL entrances...or with 1/4 inch letters...or only in Spanish and not Spanish AND English....all of which are part of the same set of requirements to meet the statutory definition of notification.

Having said all of that the chances are that if one LEGITIMATE (an entrance used as a typical entrance rather than a loading entrance or some such...and even THAT is MY interpretation of the entrance spoken of in statute) entrance is missing a sign, other than the entrance you normally use, you will probably be convicted at the lower court level where the nuances of precision in statutory interpretation are sometimes lacking. It would take an appeal to higher court to nit pick the precision of the notification requirement.

tex

[ScottDLS]

I have seen a similar topic discussed here once before, but I cannot find the thread.

I work on the 3rd shift (grave shift) alone in a large factory doing maintenance on the production equipment.

The shipping and receiving door is posted with 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but the door to the main lobby has no signs. My employee handbook does not mention anything about firearms or weapons, and my supervisor has never mentioned any rule about firearms or weapons in the workplace.

Being all alone all night in a big factory in a big city, I would like to carry concealed as I normally do everywhere else I go. Am I in the clear to carry?

There is no statutory requirement for a 30.06 or 30.07 sign to be seen by you for the statutory requirement of notification to be met. The sign must be conspicuously posted so that it is clearly visible to the public. The public need not actually see the sign...they just must be ABLE to SEE the sign by virtue of its conspicuousness and clear visibility. There is no statutory requirement concerning 30.06 as to the location of its posting on the property for which the sign is intended to effect prohibition. There IS a requirement for 30.07 at all entrances, still with the conspicuousness and visibility requirements. And again there is not statutory requirement that you actually see the sign to be notified. In fact your seeing the sign is not in the definition of "notification" which states "(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if.....IF......IF....(read it again)....IF...."(B) a sign [is] 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.

You are no more required to see the sign to have been notified that you are required to see the speed limit sign on the highway that you missed because there was an eighteen wheeler between you and the sign as you passed it. You have been notified.

Now as to the question of whether an entrance that does not have a required 30.07 sign constitutes a failure to notify...I believe it does. Although I think it will take going to the appeals process to verify that. The way the 30.07 statute is written the clause "...(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property....is part of the notification definition given in the section. You have been notified when all of those things are in place. The implication is that if any of those things are missing notification has not occurred. You can no more be "notified" as per definition by a sign that is NOT conspicuously posted that you can by a failure to properly post a 30.07 sign at ALL entrances...or with 1/4 inch letters...or only in Spanish and not Spanish AND English....all of which are part of the same set of requirements to meet the statutory definition of notification.

Having said all of that the chances are that if one LEGITIMATE (an entrance used as a typical entrance rather than a loading entrance or some such...and even THAT is MY interpretation of the entrance spoken of in statute) entrance is missing a sign, other than the entrance you normally use, you will probably be convicted at the lower court level where the nuances of precision in statutory interpretation are sometimes lacking. It would take an appeal to higher court to nit pick the precision of the notification requirement.

tex

What is missing from this interpretation is the element of the offense, where the owner PROVIDES NOTICE TO THE PERSON.

(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.

The law then goes on to define written notice. A sign...or card or document. So you say if they posted a sign they "provided notice".

What if they printed a 3x5 card and put in the employee manual, but you're not an employee so you didn't read it? Did they PROVIDE notice?

My other point is "conspicuous" means at least that you should be able to see it if you are looking for it. So if Grapevine Mills posted one entrance of a 5 acre mall with 30+ entrances, they didn't really post it conspicuously, did they?

In order to be successfully prosecuted in JP court for your $200 ticket, the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner PROVIDED YOU ("THE PERSON") notice. They don't HAVE to prove that you SAW it (technically impossible anyway), but they need to prove that it is not REASONABLE that you failed to see it.

[thetexan]

Yes, the owner must provide notice. Thankfully we have the definition of that means in the same section..."...a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice to the person by..." doing what?...by complying with the statutory requirements necessary to meet the definition of "a person receives notice [when]..., in the case of a sign, as follows...

(B) a sign posted on the property that: (note the lack of location required other than "on the property")
(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. (and in the case of 30.07) at each entrance to the property.

Also note that in the case of 30.06 a single 60 foot billboard in the parking lot of a mall, with 4 foot block letters in contrasting colors, in English and Spanish meets this requirement especially since there is no statutory requirement that the sign actually be seen by you to meet the definition of providing and you receiving notice.

In the case of 30.07 the entrance of a PROPERTY may be the entrances to the parking lot. The statute does not specify doors, or parking lot entrances. What IS specified is the term "PROPERTY".

tex

[ScottDLS]

Yes, the owner must provide notice. Thankfully we have the definition of that means in the same section..."...a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice to the person by..." doing what?...by complying with the statutory requirements necessary to meet the definition of "a person receives notice [when]..., in the case of a sign, as follows...

(B) a sign posted on the property that: (note the lack of location required other than "on the property")
(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. (and in the case of 30.07) at each entrance to the property.

Also note that in the case of 30.06 a single 60 foot billboard in the parking lot of a mall, with 4 foot block letters in contrasting colors, in English and Spanish meets this requirement especially since there is no statutory requirement that the sign actually be seen by you to meet the definition of providing and you receiving notice.

In the case of 30.07 the entrance of a PROPERTY may be the entrances to the parking lot. The statute does not specify doors, or parking lot entrances. What IS specified is the term "PROPERTY".

tex

So what about the case of a written card or document printed in the employee manual. That meets the statutory definition of written notice, but was it PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner? Was a sign PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner if it was conspicuously places on one of 30 entrances commonly used by the public and the person did not enter through there?

I agree it is not necessary to prove you SAW the sign for a 30.06, nor that necessarily it be posted at all entrances (billboard), but it must be proven that the owner PROVIDED NOTICE TO YOU via one of the methods.

If the statutory definition of written notice were all that was required, then a 3x5 card in the corporate office in New York would meet the requirement, regardless of whether it was provided to you.

[lildave40]

I have seen a similar topic discussed here once before, but I cannot find the thread.

I work on the 3rd shift (grave shift) alone in a large factory doing maintenance on the production equipment.

The shipping and receiving door is posted with 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but the door to the main lobby has no signs. My employee handbook does not mention anything about firearms or weapons, and my supervisor has never mentioned any rule about firearms or weapons in the workplace.

Being all alone all night in a big factory in a big city, I would like to carry concealed as I normally do everywhere else I go. Am I in the clear to carry?

Just my 2 cents. You know there is a posting. I would consider that being notified. Time to learn hand to hand combat.

[Soccerdad1995]

Yes, the owner must provide notice. Thankfully we have the definition of that means in the same section..."...a person receives notice if the owner...provides notice to the person by..." doing what?...by complying with the statutory requirements necessary to meet the definition of "a person receives notice [when]..., in the case of a sign, as follows...

(B) a sign posted on the property that: (note the lack of location required other than "on the property")
(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. (and in the case of 30.07) at each entrance to the property.

Also note that in the case of 30.06 a single 60 foot billboard in the parking lot of a mall, with 4 foot block letters in contrasting colors, in English and Spanish meets this requirement especially since there is no statutory requirement that the sign actually be seen by you to meet the definition of providing and you receiving notice.

In the case of 30.07 the entrance of a PROPERTY may be the entrances to the parking lot. The statute does not specify doors, or parking lot entrances. What IS specified is the term "PROPERTY".

tex

So what about the case of a written card or document printed in the employee manual. That meets the statutory definition of written notice, but was it PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner? Was a sign PROVIDED TO THE PERSON by the owner if it was conspicuously places on one of 30 entrances commonly used by the public and the person did not enter through there?

I agree it is not necessary to prove you SAW the sign for a 30.06, nor that necessarily it be posted at all entrances (billboard), but it must be proven that the owner PROVIDED NOTICE TO YOU via one of the methods.

If the statutory definition of written notice were all that was required, then a 3x5 card in the corporate office in New York would meet the requirement, regardless of whether it was provided to you.

Employee manuals are frequently provided to all new employees, and a lot of companies require you to sign something acknowledging that you have read and understand the manual. In that case, I would think that notice clearly would have been given.